| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems |
| Date: | 2018-05-20 21:16:45 |
| Message-ID: | 12746.1526851005@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The risk here is significantly reduced since the existing user-visible
> behavior is an error which presumably no one is relying upon. Between that
> and being able to conform to the standard syntax for a long-standing
> feature I would say the benefit outweighs the cost and risk.
The risk you're ignoring is that this patch will break something that
*did* work before. Given that the first version did exactly that,
I do not think that risk should be considered negligible. I'm going
to change my vote for back-patching from -0.5 to -1.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-05-20 22:56:28 | Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-05-20 20:38:18 | Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems |