Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Whats wrong with requiring U& to conform with stdstr=off quoting rules?
The sole and only excuse for that misbegotten syntax is to be exactly
SQL spec compliant --- otherwise we might as well pick something saner.
So it needs to work like stdstr=on. I thought Peter's proposal of
rejecting it altogether when stdstr=off might be reasonable. The space
sensitivity around the & still sucks, but I have not (yet) thought of
a credible security exploit for that.
regards, tom lane