Bruce, > Well, sometimes we underestimate the impact of changes, sometimes we > overestimate. The big problem is weighing the short-term problems of > change but not the long-term benefit of a change. This array problem > goes back to at least 2008: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/28026.1224611...@sss.pgh.pa.us > > so we have at least five years of confusion by not changing it then. I > am not saying we need to change it, but do think we need to weigh both > issues.
As much as I hate the current behavior (my first response was "yeah, fix those babies!"), I think we don't have a choice about creating new function names and then waiting three years to deprecate the old ones. We really can't afford to put obstacles in the way of people upgrading, especially over an issue as minor as this one. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
