On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 6:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I think there are two remaining points to settle:
>
> 1. Are we limiting the separator to be a single-byte character or not?
I agree with what others have said that expanding functionality in
this direction is more likely to mask errors than be useful.
> I'm a bit inclined to the former viewpoint.
> If we were in the business of being restrictive, why would we allow
> the field separator to be changed at all? The name of the format is
> *comma* separated values, not something else.
I still stand by the more inclusive, and arguably modern, name
"character separated values" for the abbreviation...which can be taken
to mean any single character quite easily and is how it appears to be
used these days in any case.
> 2. Speaking of the field separator, I'm pretty desperately unhappy
> with the choice of "fieldsep_csv" as the parameter name.[...]
> We could avoid this self-inflicted confusion by choosing a different
> parameter name. I'd be good with "csv_fieldsep" or "csvfieldsep".
Make sense to me - with the underscore personally.
David J.
