On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > ... I guess I'd prefer #2 to #2.5, #2.5 to #3, and #3 to #1. > > I really don't like #1 much - I think I'd almost rather do nothing. > > FWIW, that's about my evaluation of the alternatives as well. I fear > that #1 would get a lot of pushback. If we think that something like > "LATERAL ROWS FROM STRICT" is worth having on its own merits, then > doing #2.5 seems worthwhile to me, but otherwise I'm just as happy > with #2. David J. seems to feel that throwing an error (as in #2.5) > rather than silently behaving incompatibly (as in #2) is important, > but I'm not convinced. In a green field I think we'd prefer #2 over > #2.5, so I'd rather go that direction. >
I suspect the decision to error or not is a one or two line change in whatever form the final patch takes. It seems like approach #2 is acceptable on a theoretical level which implies there is no desire to make the existing LCM behavior available post-patch. Assuming it is simple then everyone will have a chance to make their opinion known on whether the 2.0 or 2.5 variation is preferable for the final commit. If a decision needs to be made sooner due to a design decision I'd hope the author of the patch would make that known so we can bring this to resolution at that point instead. David J.
