On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> Kinda -- what I'm saying is you just don't go around changing function >> behaviors to make them 'better' unless the affected behavior was >> specifically reserved as undefined. The fact is nobody knows how many >> users will be affected and the extent of the ultimate damage (pro tip: >> it's always more and worse than expected); I'm astonished it's even >> being considered. > > Well, I think the question is how many people have such arrays that will > be effected. If we don't do something, we live with this odd behavior > forever. We have been willing to make some bold decisions in the past > to improve user experience, and it mostly has worked out well. I > disagree that it is always worse than expected.
Well, you can have the last word (although 'bold' was an interesting word choice, heh) -- I feel guilty enough about beating up Brendan already. I feel this way every time compatibility changes come up, so it's nothing specific to this patch really. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers