On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:22:55PM -0700, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 06:34, Alexey Klyukin <alexk@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 12, 2011, at 4:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> By the same token, I'm not convinced it's a good idea for this
> >> behavior to be off by default. Surely many people will
> >> altogether fail to notice that it's an option? If we're going to
> >> have a backward-compatibility GUC at all, ISTM that you ought to
> >> get the good stuff unless you ask for the old way.
> >
> > I think the number of people failing to notice the changes would
> > be the same whenever we set the new or the old behavior by
> > default. I decided to default to the the old behavior since it
> > won't break the existing code as opposed to just hiding the good
> > stuff, although it would slower the adoption of the new behavior.
>
> Personally, I think the point of a compatibility GUC is that at some
> point in the distant future we can get rid of it. If we default to
> the old behavior thats going to be harder to do. +1 for defaulting
> to the new behavior.
>
> [ Id actually vote for _not_ having a compatibility option at all,
> we change more major things than this IMHO every major release. (And
> even then some major things in minor releases, for example the
> removal of Safe.pm) ]
+1 for changing the behavior to something sane with loud, specific
warnings in the release notes about what will break and how.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
