* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net) wrote:
> On 12/9/14 5:40 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I agree with this but I don't really see why we wouldn't say "hey, this
> > is going to change in 9.5."
>
> Well, for one thing, we don't even know if it's going to be called 9.5. ;-)
Now that is certainly a very good point.
> And there is always a chance for a technical reason popping up that we
> might not make the change after all in 9.5.
I suppose.
> I'd be fine with something more along the lines of "the default might
> change in the future ... if you want to be future-proof, set it explicitly".
Sure, that'd work for me.
> Let's see an actual patch.
Will do. Might be a few days before I get to it but I don't think
there's any cause for rush anyway.
Thanks,
Stephen
