On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 06:34, Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2011, at 4:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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.
> I think the number of people failing to notice the changes would be the same whenever we set the new or the old behavior by default. I decided to default to the the old behavior since it won't break the existing code as opposed to just hiding the good stuff, although it would slower the adoption of the new behavior.
Personally, I think the point of a compatibility GUC is that at some
point in the distant future we can get rid of it. If we default to
the old behavior thats going to be harder to do. +1 for defaulting to
the new behavior.
[ Id actually vote for _not_ having a compatibility option at all, we
change more major things than this IMHO every major release. (And even
then some major things in minor releases, for example the removal of
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2011-01-12 19:27:05|
|Subject: Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-12 19:18:59|
|Subject: RowMarks versus child tables with varying column sets|