On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> [ 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
>> Safe.pm) ]
> I think the main question here is: how loudly is existing code going to
> break? If the breakage is silent, it's going to be very problematic.
> If functions fail to run at all, then we can live without the
> compatibility option.
I suspect it'd be quiet, unfortunately, since there are a bazillion ad hoc implementations of a Perl SQL array parser, and many of them, I suspect, don't complain if the string doesn't look like an SQL array. They would just parse a string like "ARRAY(0x118ee2a0)" and return an empty array, or a NULL.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-12 19:42:57|
|Subject: Re: WIP: Range Types|
|Previous:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2011-01-12 19:36:28|
|Subject: Re: pg_depend explained|