Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems
Date
Msg-id 12746.1526851005@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> ​The risk here is significantly reduced since the existing user-visible
> behavior is an error which presumably no one is relying upon.  Between that
> and being able to conform to the standard syntax for a long-standing
> feature I would say the benefit outweighs the cost and risk.

The risk you're ignoring is that this patch will break something that
*did* work before.  Given that the first version did exactly that,
I do not think that risk should be considered negligible.  I'm going
to change my vote for back-patching from -0.5 to -1.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems