On 12/30/2014 09:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> writes:
>> --On 29. Dezember 2014 12:55:11 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Given the lack of previous complaints, this probably isn't backpatching
>>> material, but it sure seems like a bit of attention to consistency
>>> would be warranted here.
>> Now that i read it i remember a client complaining about this some time
>> ago. I forgot about it, but i think there's value in it to backpatch.
> Hm. Last night I wrote the attached draft patch, which I was intending
> to apply to HEAD only. The argument against back-patching is basically
> that this might change the interpretation of scripts that had been
> accepted silently before. For example
> \set ECHO_HIDDEN NoExec
> will now select "noexec" mode whereas before you silently got "on" mode.
> In one light this is certainly a bug fix, but in another it's just
> definitional instability.
>
> If we'd gotten a field bug report we might well have chosen to back-patch,
> though, and perhaps your client's complaint counts as that.
>
> Opinions anyone?
>
> r
I got caught by this with ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK on 9.3 just this afternoon
before remembering this thread. So there's a field report :-)
+0.75 for backpatching (It's hard to imagine someone relying on the bad
behaviour, but you never know).
cheers
andrew
