Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Neil Conway wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 18:55, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > Does the change worth the trouble ?
> > > > Please don't break BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY easily.
> > >
> > > If it's important enough, we can provide a GUC option for it.
> > >
> > > My guess is that a GUC option isn't needed, but then again we've been
> > > criticized for disregarding backward compatibility in the past...
> >
> > I think our policy is going to be that GUC backward compatibility
> > options have to be asked for during beta, unless it is obvious.
>
> Why should we take the trouble to break the backward
> compatibility in the first place ? The only reason
> that I can see is that you dislike it.
The big question is does it make sense to anyone? I don't think so.
And if someone does, how should it behave when autocommit is off?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
