On 01/11/2011 09:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
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.
Sure, that seems reasonable.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
