Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 17 November 2011 03:54, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >?It's not reasonable to suppose
> > that nobody is using it today.
>
> I didn't suppose that no one is using it, but that those that are
> using it are unaware of the risks with prefix validation, and that
> there will be a rude awakening for them.
>
> > Ergo, we can't just summarily break
> > backwards compatibility on the grounds that we don't like the design.
> > Heck, we don't even have a field bug report that the design limitation
> > is causing any real problems for real users ... so IMO, the claims that
> > this is dangerously broken are a bit overblown.
>
> I think that's it's rather unlikely that removing hyphenation and
> prefix validation would adversely affect anyone, provided that it was
> well documented and wasn't applied to stable branches. If it were up
> to me, I might remove validation from stable branches but keep
> hyphenation, while removing both for 9.2 . After all, hyphenation will
> break anyway, so they're worse off continuing to rely on hyphenation
> when it cannot actually be relied on.
Clarification: Our policy for patching back-branches is that the bug
has to affect many users, be serious, and the fix has to be easily
tested.
For a user-visible change (which this would be), the criteria is even
more strict.
I don't see any of this reaching the level that it needs to be
backpatched, so I think we have to accept that this will be 9.2-only
change.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
