On 01/11/2011 09:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2011 07:17 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think there's at least a danger of breaking legacy code doing that. Say
>>>> you have some code that does a ref test on the argument, for example. The
>>>> behavior would now be changed.
>>> I think that'd be pretty rare.
>> Possibly it would. But we usually try pretty hard to avoid that sort of
>> breakage.
> 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.
>
Sure, that seems reasonable.
cheers
andrew
