On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:14:15AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
> > semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
> Really? I thought that standard_conforming_strings was a great example
> of how to ease our users into a backwards-compatibility break. My
> thought was that we change the behavior in 9.4, provide a
> backwards-compatible GUC with warnings in the logs for two versions, and
> then take the GUC away.
standard_conforming_strings is not a good example because it took 5+
years to implement the change, and issued warnings about non-standard
use for several releases --- it is not a pattern to follow.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2013-03-26 04:40:25|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade segfaults when given an invalid PGSERVICE value|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2013-03-26 04:29:48|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade segfaults when given an invalid PGSERVICE