On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > Kris Jurka wrote: >>> >>> I guess the obvious question is whether we shouldn't instead change >>> the docs to match the behavior. I suspect there's almost no chance >>> we'd consider back-patching a change of this type, since it is a clear >>> behavior change. And even if we did, there would still be people >>> running servers with the old behavior with which JDBC and other >>> drivers would have to cope. Having two different behaviors might be >>> worse than the status quo. >>> >> >> It is a clear behavior change, but that's what bug fixes are. > > That was my first reaction. I don't think we're in the business if > redefining bugs out of existence.
I certainly understand that reaction - I just worry that there might be people depending on the current behavior. We really don't want to get a reputation for breaking things in minor releases. But this is not an area of the code I'm very familiar with, and I'm not in a good position to judge the likelihood of breakage, so I'll defer to those who are... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
