Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PERFORM] typoed column name, but postgres didn't grump

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, "<pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] typoed column name, but postgres didn't grump
Date: 2010-10-29 21:48:59
Message-ID: 0E628919-9700-47B7-9436-41CEB09DC94F@gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-performance
On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:21 PM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> I think if I had to pick a proposal, I'd say we should disable
>>>>> #2 for the specific case of casting a composite type to
>>>>> something else.
>> 
>>>> Well, then let's do that.  It's not the exact fix I'd pick, but
>>>> it's clearly better than nothing, so I'm willing to sign on to
>>>> it as a compromise position.
>> 
>>> So, I'd rather scrap #2 entirely; but if that really would break
>>> much working code, +1 for ignoring it when it would cast a
>>> composite to something else.
>> 
>> Well, assuming for the sake of argument that we have consensus on
>> fixing it like that, is this something we should just do in HEAD,
>> or should we back-patch into 8.4 and 9.0?  We'll be hearing about
>> it nigh indefinitely if we don't, but on the other hand this isn't
>> the kind of thing we like to change in released branches.
> 
> I can't see back-patching it -- it's a behavior change.
> 
> On the bright side, in five years after the release where it's
> removed, it will be out of support.  Problem reports caused by it
> should be tapering off before that....

Yeah, I think we're going to have to live with it, at least for 8.4.  One could make an argument that 9.0 is new enough we could get away with a small behavior change to avoid a large amount of user confusion.  But that may be a self-serving argument based on wanting to tamp down the bug reports rather than a wisely considered policy decision...  so I'm not sure I quite buy it.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-29 21:50:07
Subject: Re: Slow Query- Bad Row Estimate
Previous:From: Ozer, PamDate: 2010-10-29 21:47:55
Subject: Re: Slow Query- Bad Row Estimate

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-29 21:53:52
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] typoed column name, but postgres didn't grump
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-10-29 21:08:42
Subject: Re: BUG #5707: Cross compilation for windows is broken

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group