Re: Fixing busted citext function declarations

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> (I think it is possible that the behavior change is actually problematic
> as opposed to just behaving differently. For instance, if the function
> is used in a subselect that's expected to return only one row, and it
> suddenly starts returning more, the query would raise an error. Seems
> better to err on the side of caution.)

Yeah. Also, I realized from the citext regression tests that there's a
behavioral change even if you *don't* use the 'g' flag: the previous
behavior was to return a null on no match, but now you get zero rows out
instead. That's a fairly significant change.

> I think we should keep the 1.0 version this time, in back branches.

Agreed. Maybe we shouldn't even make 1.1 the default in the back
branches.

regards, tom lane