Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:57:16AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether
>> we should make libpq permissive about extra spaces (as per
>> Michael's patch). I guess you could argue that all of these
>> fixes are consistent with the principle of "be conservative
>> with what you send and liberal with what you accept". But at
>> most I'd fix these remaining things in HEAD.
> Removing this extra whitespace from the ECPG strings sounds good here.
> FWIW, my argument about doing this in libpq is not really related to
> ECPG: it feels inconsistent to apply one rule for the parameters and a
> different one for the values in URIs. So I'd be OK to see how this
> goes on as a HEAD-only change.
OK, if there's no objections let's push both remaining patches
to HEAD only.
regards, tom lane
