Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 04:10:01PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/10/15 1:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:45 PM, David G. Johnston
> >> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> I would vote for Auto meaning On in the .0 release.
> >
> >> I don't think users will appreciate an auto value whose meaning might
> >> change at some point, and I doubt we've have much luck identifying the
> >> correct point, either. Users will upgrade over the course of years,
> >> not months, and will not necessarily complete their application
> >> retesting within any particular period of time thereafter.
> >
> > Yeah, I think that's too cute by far. And people do not like things like
> > this changing in point releases. If we do this, I envision it as being
> > on by default in 9.5 and then changing the default in 9.6 or 9.7 or so.
>
> Well, I point again to standards_conforming_strings: Leave the warning
> off for one release (or more), then default to on for one (or more),
> then change the behavior.
>
> We can change the timeline, but I don't think the approach was unsound.

Sorry to be replying late (but when has that ever stopped me :-) ), but
for standards_conforming_strings, there were security concerns about the
change, and we are forcing people to move to a new necessary syntax when
using backslash escapes, i.e. E''. Once they moved to E'', the warnings
went away.

In this case, the way to avoid the warnings is to add _unnecessary_
parentheses, and sometimes in cases that don't need them, and never
will.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +