From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add \pset options for boolean value display
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwYycabxpvPx-o6Q1WKy5Ph4PFiYrKoDQQT7TaL1gT+5jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKFQuwZaeRT3Nco9sPd-9ZwEuStUZLU+AKH9+iRf4978T59kRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <202510201419.mpror4maizbg@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAKFQuwYWdocoCsfDOZhY2xALM1U89O4bP=Ou266pAOdVojgpfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <385850DE-F52D-4E37-9207-50FD51DF6F9A@gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwbJ+Fn9u0a4hYWoyxA8FK-fD=+xGisrs6rjgeqcRtEf5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwYycabxpvPx-o6Q1WKy5Ph4PFiYrKoDQQT7TaL1gT+5jw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 20 Oct 2025 22:48:04 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <417646.1761017832.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 23:37:12 -0400
Message-ID: <417647.1761017832@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/417647.1761017832%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, October 20, 2025, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Sympathetic to the concern but opposed to taking on such responsibility.
>> They could probably modify their own query to do that if they really wanted
>> to fool someone and I’m having trouble accepting this happening by
>> accident.  Do we test for yes/no; oui/non (i.e., foreign language choices);
>> checkmark/X?

> Actually, preventing t/f makes sense to me.  Prevents a “hacker” from
> messing with the default outputs in a hard-to-identify manner.  Any other
> value would point to pset being used.

-1.  Yeah, you could reject "\pset true 'f'", but what about
not-obviously-different values such as 'f ', or f with a non-breaking
space, or f with a tab, or yadda yadda yadda?

I went on record as opposed to this entire idea back at the start of
this thread, precisely because I was worried that it could lead to
confusion.  And I remain of the opinion that it's not a great idea.
But if we're going to do it, let's not bother with any fig-leaf
proposals that pretend to partially guard against confusion.

			regards, tom lane