Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 13:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> [ still bearing scars from the 8.3 implicit-cast business, which we
>> didn't think would generate nearly the backlash it did... ]
> Yeah that was my first reaction. But then again we also have a guc
> they can change back.
"There's a GUC for it" is NOT a helpful answer; if there's one thing
that we've learned the hard way over the past years, it's that GUCs
don't solve compatibility problems. Applications don't know to set
them, and having the wrong setting can easily become a security hole
(particularly for this one).
I stand by the position that it's way too late in the cycle for
insufficiently-thought-out proposals for major behavioral changes.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-01-29 21:04:33|
|Subject: Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-01-29 21:01:37|
|Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings|