On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:08 AM Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 11.02.23 20:24, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > I think on a green field it'd be clearly better to do something like the > > above. What does give me pause is that it seems quite likely to break > > existing queries, and to a lesser degree, might break applications > relying on > > inferred column names > > > > Can anybody think of a good way out of that? It's not like that problem > is > > going to go away at some point... > > I think we should just do it and not care about what breaks. There has > never been any guarantee about these. > > I'm going to toss a -1 into the ring but if this does go through a strong request that it be disabled via a GUC. The ugliness of that option is why we shouldn't do this. Defacto reality is still a reality we are on the hook for. I too find the legacy design choice to be annoying but not so much that changing it seems like a good idea. David J.
