| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql.print_strict_params |
| Date: | 2013-10-04 07:53:33 |
| Message-ID: | 524E73FD.4000606@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/3/13 6:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> This looks like a nice clean patch. My only concern is that it makes
> "on" and "off" unreserved plpgsql keywords. It looks like that will
> make them unusable as unquoted identifiers in a few contexts in which
> they can now be used. Has there been any discussion about whether
> that's OK?
I don't think there has.
I originally had more ideas for options which you could turn on/off,
which I believe might have justified reserving them, but I'm not sure
any of those will ever happen, at least not as a simple on/off option.
Did you have a better idea for the syntax? The only thing I can think
of is print_strict_params and no_print_strict_params, and I'm not very
fond of that.
Also, in what contexts are unreserved keywords a problem in modern PL/PgSQL?
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-10-04 08:28:43 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-10-04 07:32:14 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |