On 3/4/15 5:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure how changing behavior like this in a minor release was
>>> considered acceptable.
>
>> I'm guessing that the fact that it changes behavior in cases like this
>> wasn't recognized, but I suppose Peter will have to be the one to
>> comment on that.
>
> It was considered to be a bug fix; more, given the few complaints about
> the clearly-broken old behavior, we thought it was a fix that would affect
> few people, and them positively.
Yeah, but these things usually go the other way. "This has been broken
for 10 years but nobody noticed, so we're not going to fix this" is the
answer I'm more used to seeing. And frankly, even though I remember
getting the wrong end of that hose a few times, I prefer that to
breaking apps in minor releases.
.m
