Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> ... However, if we don't do what I've proposed here,
> then I think 8.4 and 9.0 and probably 9.1 are going to need to stay as
> they are, because...
>> RH> (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy
>> RH> syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? �(Given that the
>> RH> workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say "no", but could be
>> RH> persuaded otherwise.)
>>
>> +1 for this. Pre-7.3 syntax is dead in fact for many years.
> ...this is not something we're going to back-patch.
Given the lack of prior complaints, and the simplicity of the
double-quote workaround, I feel little need to have a back-patchable
fix.
regards, tom lane
