Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]
Date: 2011-01-12 04:45:51
Message-ID: 4D2D31FF.1050208@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01/11/2011 09:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2011 07:17 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think there's at least a danger of breaking legacy code doing that. Say
>>>> you have some code that does a ref test on the argument, for example. The
>>>> behavior would now be changed.
>>> I think that'd be pretty rare.
>> Possibly it would. But we usually try pretty hard to avoid that sort of
>> breakage.
> By the same token, I'm not convinced it's a good idea for this
> behavior to be off by default. Surely many people will altogether
> fail to notice that it's an option? If we're going to have a
> backward-compatibility GUC at all, ISTM that you ought to get the good
> stuff unless you ask for the old way.
>

Sure, that seems reasonable.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Itagaki Takahiro 2011-01-12 04:52:12 Re: multiset patch review
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2011-01-12 04:21:02 Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum