Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings
Date
Msg-id 10576.1264797740@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings  (Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com>)
Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> With the release of Postgres 9.0, should we consider changing the
>> default for 'standard_conforming_strings'?

> I'm inclined to think we're going to have enough problems without that.

BTW, core already had that discussion, but maybe I should repeat it
to try to forestall any other "since this is going to be 9.0, let's
break backwards compatibility in a big way!" proposals.  Now is not
the time to be making big changes; we are much too late in the devel
cycle to work through all the possible consequences.  Because we
switched from it's-8.5 to it's-9.0 at such a late stage, we really
need to consider that that's only a marketing version number and
technical compatibility decisions should be made the same way as
for any other major release.

Perhaps at some point we will choose to do a major version bump where
we really do clean up a lot of bad backwards-compatibility things.  That
needs to be done in a deliberate fashion with a lot of advance planning;
and things should get broken near the beginning of the devel cycle, not
the end.

[ still bearing scars from the 8.3 implicit-cast business, which we
didn't think would generate nearly the backlash it did... ]
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings