On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> So, the plan is to add this now with non-standard semantics and then >> change the semantics later if and when we implement what the standard >> requires? That's not something we usually do, and I don't see why >> it's a better idea in this case than it is in general. It's OK to >> have non-standard behavior with non-standard syntax, but I think >> non-standard behavior with standard syntax is something we want to try >> hard to avoid. > >> I'm in favor of rejecting this patch in its entirety. The >> functionality looks useful, but once you remove the syntax support, it >> could just as easily be distributed as a contrib module rather than in >> core. > > +1 ... if we're going to provide nonstandard behavior, it should be with > a different syntax. Also, with a contrib module we could keep on > providing the nonstandard behavior for people who still need it, even > after implementing the standard properly.
Good point. -- 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
