On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:14:15AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > > No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible > > semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now. > > Really? I thought that standard_conforming_strings was a great example > of how to ease our users into a backwards-compatibility break. My > thought was that we change the behavior in 9.4, provide a > backwards-compatible GUC with warnings in the logs for two versions, and > then take the GUC away.
standard_conforming_strings is not a good example because it took 5+ years to implement the change, and issued warnings about non-standard use for several releases --- it is not a pattern to follow. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
