"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
I'm not seeing how an unsupported fear that there *might* be some
incompatibilities is a good argument for instead adopting an approach
that absolutely, positively, guaranteed *WILL* break everybody's code.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2011-01-13 05:10:26|
|Subject: Re: pg_ctl failover Re: Latches, signals, and waiting|
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2011-01-13 04:52:20|
|Subject: Re: pg_primary_conninfo|