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.
regards,
Hiroshi Inouehttp://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
