Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Well, since I asked in April of 2009, at the beginning of the cycle, 6
years after the introduction of the variable, and we still are not doing
it, then let's stop pretending we will ever do it.
The way the docs stand now we hold it over people's heads and issue
warnings that are meaningless if we are never going to change it.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2010-01-29 21:16:04|
|Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-01-29 21:04:33|
|Subject: Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown|