Tom, all,
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> While I'm generally not one to vote for dropping backwards-compatibility
> features, I have to say that I find #4 the most attractive of these
> options. It would result in getting rid of boatloads of under-tested
> code, whereas #2 would really just add more, and #3 at best maintains
> the status quo complexity-wise.
+1.
Thanks!
Stephen
