On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:22:55PM -0700, Alex Hunsaker wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 06:34, Alexey Klyukin <al...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 12, 2011, at 4:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I think the number of people failing to notice the changes would > > be the same whenever we set the new or the old behavior by > > default. I decided to default to the the old behavior since it > > won't break the existing code as opposed to just hiding the good > > stuff, although it would slower the adoption of the new behavior. > > Personally, I think the point of a compatibility GUC is that at some > point in the distant future we can get rid of it. If we default to > the old behavior thats going to be harder to do. +1 for defaulting > to the new behavior. > > [ Id actually vote for _not_ having a compatibility option at all, > we change more major things than this IMHO every major release. (And > even then some major things in minor releases, for example the > removal of Safe.pm) ]
+1 for changing the behavior to something sane with loud, specific warnings in the release notes about what will break and how. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers