On 15.02.2011 18:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> What risk? And at least we'd be trying to do it cleanly, in a manner
>>> that should work for at least 99% of users. AFAICT, Heikki's proposal
>>> is "break it for everyone, and damn the torpedoes".
>
>> I must be confused. I thought Heikki's proposal was "fix it in 9.1,
>> because incompatibilities are an expected part of major release
>> upgrades, but don't break it in 9.0 and prior, because it's not
>> particularly important and we don't want to change behavior or risk
>> breaking things in minor releases".
Right, that's what I meant.
> No, nobody was proposing changing it before 9.1 (or at least I didn't
> think anybody was). What's under discussion is how much effort to put
> into making a 9.0-to-9.1 upgrade go smoothly for people who have the
> function installed.
Oh, never mind then.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
