On Jul28, 2011, at 01:28 , Tom Lane wrote: > Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> writes: >> Is there an establishes practice for situations like this, i.e. a behavior- >> changing bug-fix committed to X.Y+1 before X.Y is released? > > Generally, we do nothing. It's a bit premature (in fact a lot > premature) to assume that the current behavior of HEAD is exactly what > will be released in 9.2, but putting statements about it into 9.1 docs > would amount to assuming that. It's the job of the 9.2 release notes > to point out incompatibilities, not the job of the 9.1 docs to guess > what will happen in the future.
Fair enough. > If you think that the incompatibilities in question are so earth-shaking > as to require retroactive advance warnings, maybe we should reconsider > whether they're a good thing to do at all. Certainly not earth-shaking, no. Also an obvious improvement, and probably equally likely to fix existing applications as they are to break them. So let's by all means not revert them. I simply though that putting a warning about XPATH() escaping deficiencies might save some people the trouble of (a) finding out about that the hard way and (b) developing work-arounds which are bound to be broken by 9.2. I'm not saying we must absolutely do so - heck, I'm not even totally convinced myself that we even should do so. I simply happened to realize today that the timing was a bit unfortunate, figured it wouldn't hurt to get additional opinions on this, and thus asked. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
