On 12/2/20 12:48 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> st 2. 12. 2020 v 0:05 odesílatel Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net
> <mailto:andrew@dunslane.net>> napsal:
>
>
> On 11/30/20 8:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 2020-11-29 18:36, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't really get the point of this function. There is
> AFAICT no
> >> function to produce this escaped format, and it's not a
> recognized
> >> interchange format. So under what circumstances would one
> need to
> >> use this?
> >>
> >>
> >> Some corporate data can be in CSV format with escaped unicode
> >> characters. Without this function it is not possible to decode
> these
> >> files without external application.
> >
> > I would like some supporting documentation on this. So far we only
> > have one stackoverflow question, and then this implementation, and
> > they are not even the same format. My worry is that if there is not
> > precise specification, then people are going to want to add
> things in
> > the future, and there will be no way to analyze such requests in a
> > principled way.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Also, should this be an extension? I'm dubious about including such
> marginal uses in the core code unless there's a really good case
> for it.
>
>
>
[...]
> 3. there are new disadvantages of extensions in current DBaaS times.
> Until the extension is not directly accepted by a cloud provider, then
> the extension is not available for users. The acceptance of extensions
> is not too agile - so moving this code to extension doesn't solve this
> problem. Without DBaaS the implementation of this feature as the
> extensions can be good enough.
>
>
That argument can apply to any extension someone wants to use. If your
DBaaS provider doesn't support some extension you need to lobby them or
find another that does support it, rather than try to put it in core
code. Some extensions, such as untrusted PLs, will naturally almost
never be supported by DBaaS providers because they are inherently
unsafe. That's not the case here.
cheers
andrew