Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tim Watts (tim.j.watts@kcl.ac.uk) wrote:
>> I would have to respectfully take another point of view: that that
>> particular judgement is probably better placed with the sysadmin
>> rather than a blanket decision by the devs.
> It's not a blanket decision by any means- the current situation is that
> such an option doesn't exist. It's not "it exists, but we disabled it
> because we felt like it."
> Were someone to write the code to support such an option, it's entirely
> possible it'd get committed (though likely with strong caveats about its
> use in the documentation).
I'm not sure it would. Allowing a fallback would amount to a protocol
change, meaning that old clients might fail in strange ways. You'd
need a lot stronger case than has been made here to justify dealing
with that.
regards, tom lane
