Thread: [PATCH] Documentation: remove confusing paragraph about backslash escaping
[PATCH] Documentation: remove confusing paragraph about backslash escaping
From
Hannes Frederic Sowa
Date:
Hi! As with recent changes to `standard_conforming_strings' the paragraph about backslash escaping in the description of `LIKE' is only confusing. Thus I attached a patch to remove it. Greetings, Hannes -- Hannes Sowa <hsowa@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Attachment
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove confusing paragraph about backslash escaping
From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hsowa@bfk.de> wrote: > As with recent changes to `standard_conforming_strings' the paragraph about > backslash escaping in the description of `LIKE' is only confusing. Thus I > attached a patch to remove it. I think I agree with removing this paragraph; it made sense when standard_conforming_strings=off was the default, but that's not so anymore. We could come up with some alternative text to insert here but I think that might be unnecessarily long-winded. Other opinions? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hsowa@bfk.de> writes:
> As with recent changes to `standard_conforming_strings' the paragraph
> about backslash escaping in the description of `LIKE' is only confusing.
> Thus I attached a patch to remove it.
The para is still relevant if you don't have standard_conforming_strings
on. It could probably use work but I don't think simply removing it
is appropriate.
regards, tom lane
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove confusing paragraph about backslash escaping
From
Florian Weimer
Date:
* Tom Lane: > Hannes Frederic Sowa <hsowa@bfk.de> writes: >> As with recent changes to `standard_conforming_strings' the paragraph >> about backslash escaping in the description of `LIKE' is only confusing. >> Thus I attached a patch to remove it. > > The para is still relevant if you don't have standard_conforming_strings > on. And if you aren't using parametrized queries. The old text is a bit misleading even with standard_conforming_strings set to off. It is technically correct because it refers to the SQL statement parser which is run on parameters, but this seems a pretty fine distinction. -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hsowa@bfk.de> wrote:
>> As with recent changes to `standard_conforming_strings' the paragraph about
>> backslash escaping in the description of `LIKE' is only confusing. Thus I
>> attached a patch to remove it.
> I think I agree with removing this paragraph; it made sense when
> standard_conforming_strings=off was the default, but that's not so
> anymore. We could come up with some alternative text to insert here
> but I think that might be unnecessarily long-winded.
On a closer look, I see three different places in the
functions-matching.html page that talk about doubling backslashes, of
which this one might be the least bogus, since it at least provides
a cross-reference to someplace where you would read about
standard_conforming_strings.
I suggest replacing the first and third cases with something along the
lines of
Note: if you have standard_conforming_strings turned off, anybackslashes you write in literal string constants will
needto bedoubled. See Section 4.1.2.1 for more information.
The second case is just a parenthetical comment and perhaps could be
removed.
regards, tom lane
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove confusing paragraph about backslash escaping
From
Hannes Frederic Sowa
Date:
On 02/28/2012 12:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I suggest replacing the first and third cases with something along the > lines of > > Note: if you have standard_conforming_strings turned off, any > backslashes you write in literal string constants will need to be > doubled. See Section 4.1.2.1 for more information. > > The second case is just a parenthetical comment and perhaps could be > removed. Definitely OK by me. Thanks for looking into this! -- Hannes Sowa <hsowa@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99