| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Vik Reykja <vikreykja(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inputting relative datetimes |
| Date: | 2011-08-30 18:25:12 |
| Message-ID: | 23049.1314728712@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Well, I'm fine with not back-patching it, but think the existing
> behavior is flat wrong.
I'm not arguing that this way isn't better, just that it's different.
There have been zero user complaints about this behavior since Tom
Lockhart put it in, more than ten years ago. That sort of militates
against a hard-line "it's flat wrong" stance.
But more to the point, since there wasn't an error before and there
isn't an error now, this is just a silent behavioral change, and we
avoid doing those in released branches. People don't want to have to
retest their applications against minor releases.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-08-30 18:32:56 | Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-08-30 17:29:13 | Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build |