On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 23:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, patch attached. It was actually easier than I thought. We have to
> > decide if we are going to remove the old syntax in 7.4.
> I'd say "no". There's no compelling reason to break backward
> compatibility here --- certainly a couple more productions in gram.y
> isn't enough reason.
I agree here. Why intentionally break something that doesn't violate
standards, and would cause people to have to look at all their queries.
I personally hope y'all do *NOT* remove the old syntax.
> But I think it'd be sufficient to document only the new syntax.
Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it?
(Just curious, I'm not wedded to it).
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-08-28 13:14:43|
|Subject: Re: Open 7.3 items |
|Previous:||From: Sir Mordred The Traitor||Date: 2002-08-28 09:51:31|
|Subject: @(#)Mordre Labs advisory 0x0005: Several buffer overruns in PostgreSQL|
pgsql-sql by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-08-28 13:52:40|
|Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?|
|Previous:||From: Ivan Jordanov||Date: 2002-08-28 11:27:09|
|Subject: Can I use "UPDATE" sql statement in trigger before or after update ?|