From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2018-05-22 12:59:17 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaFZQv3RWr2LexGOCwdLcfvesbfwQciNyrbX-GOXzsvug@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "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.
I'm also -1 for back-patching, although it seems that the ship has
already sailed. I don't think that the failure of something to work
that could have been made to work if the original feature author had
tried harder rises to the level of a bug. If we start routinely
back-patching things that fall into that category, we will certainly
manage to destabilize older releases on a regular basis.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2018-05-22 13:13:10 | Re: A Japanese-unfriendy error message contruction |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-05-22 12:49:54 | Re: perl checking |