On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:28:07PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > 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.
Perhaps we need to mark the TODO item as "will not fix". -- 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
