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
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.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-12 02:17:51|
|Subject: reviewers needed!|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-12 02:03:30|
|Subject: Re: system views for walsender activity|