Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of mié ene 12 16:39:56 -0300 2011: > On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > >> [ 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) ] > > > > I think the main question here is: how loudly is existing code going to > > break? If the breakage is silent, it's going to be very problematic. > > If functions fail to run at all, then we can live without the > > compatibility option. > > I suspect it'd be quiet, unfortunately, since there are a bazillion ad hoc > implementations of a Perl SQL array parser, and many of them, I suspect, > don't complain if the string doesn't look like an SQL array. They would just > parse a string like "ARRAY(0x118ee2a0)" and return an empty array, or a NULL.
I kinda doubt that a function failing in that way would pass any testing. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
