On 10/12/21 5:19 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:31 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> If the behavior v14 had implemented were "throw an error if the >>> first word doesn't match the current database name", perhaps nobody >>> would have questioned it. But that's not what we have. It's fairly >>> clear that neither you nor Mark thought very much about this case, >>> let alone tested it. Given that, I am not very pleased that you >>> are retroactively trying to justify breaking it by claiming that >>> it was already broken. It's been that way since 7.3 implemented >>> schemas, more or less, and nobody's complained about it. Therefore >>> I see little argument for changing that behavior. Changing it in >>> an already-released branch is especially suspect. >> >> Oh, give me a break. The previous behavior obviously hasn't been >> tested either, and is broken on its face. If someone *had* complained >> about it, I imagine you would have promptly fixed it and likely >> back-patched the fix, probably in under 24 hours from the time of the >> report. I find it difficult to take seriously the contention that >> anyone is expecting \d dlsgjdsghj.sdhg.l.dsg.jkhsdg.foo.bar to work >> like \d foo.bar, or that they would even prefer that behavior over an >> error message. You're carefully avoiding addressing that question in >> favor of having a discussion of backward compatibility, but a better >> term for what we're talking about here would be bug-compatibility. > > I tend to agree with Robert on this particular case. Accepting random > nonsense there isn't a feature or something which really needs to be > preserved. For my 2c, I would hope that one day we will be able to > accept other database names there and if that happens, what then? We'd > "break" these cases anyway. Better to be clear that such nonsense isn't > intended to be accepted and clean that up. I do think it'd be good to > accept the current database name there as that's reasonable.
I am going to throw my hat in with Robert and Stephen, too. At least for 15 if we don't want to change this behavior in back branches. -- Vik Fearing