Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000@gmail.com> writes:
> This assignment is on todo list and has a benefit of providing an
> additional defense against SQL-injection attacks.
This is on the todo list? Really? It seems unlikely to be worth the
backwards-compatibility breakage. I certainly doubt that we could
get away with unconditionally rejecting such cases with no "off" switch,
as you have here.
> Previous mailing list discussion is here
> <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9236.1167968298@sss.pgh.pa.us>
That message points out specifically that we *didn't* plan to do this.
Perhaps back then (ten years ago) we could have gotten away with the
compatibility breakage, but now I doubt it.
regards, tom lane