Re: citext operator precedence fix

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> But I don't think we're required to support that case.  If the user
>> does a non-standard install, it's their job to deal with the fallout.
>
> Well, I'll write the script anyway, since *I* need it.  I'm installing
> this on a 9.0 database which will be later upgraded to 9.1.
>
> However, before I write all this, I'd like to settle the question of
> acceptability.  What do I need to do to make it OK to break backwards
> compatibility for this?  I feel strongly that I'm correcting it to the
> behavior users expect, but that's not statistically backed.
>
> I don't want to spend several hours writing scripts so that it can be
> rejected *for that reason*.

I'm OK with the proposed behavior change and I agree that it's
probably what people want, but I am awfully suspicious that those
extra casts are going to break something you haven't thought about.
It might be worth posting a rough version first just to see if I (or
someone else) can break it before you spend a lot of time on it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company