Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Oh, right. So scratch that objection. The other one is still fatal
>> though ...
> So, could we just decide that we don't care about preserving that
> property any more, and document it as an incompatibility in whatever
> release we break it in?
No, I don't think so. Especially not for such a picayune benefit as
getting rid of one item pointer a bit sooner.
> It strikes me that it likely wouldn't be any
> worse than, oh, say, flipping the default value of
> standard_conforming_strings,
Really? It's taking away functionality and not supplying any substitute
(or at least you did not propose any). In fact, you didn't even suggest
exactly how you propose to not break joined UPDATE/DELETE.
regards, tom lane
