On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > On 01/11/2011 07:17 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: >> On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >>> I think there's at least a danger of breaking legacy code doing that. Say >>> you have some code that does a ref test on the argument, for example. The >>> behavior would now be changed. >> >> I think that'd be pretty rare. > > Possibly it would. But we usually try pretty hard to avoid that sort of > breakage.
By the same token, I'm not convinced it's a good idea for this behavior to be off by default. Surely many people will altogether fail to notice that it's an option? If we're going to have a backward-compatibility GUC at all, ISTM that you ought to get the good stuff unless you ask for the old way. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
