On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> So, the plan is to add this now with non-standard semantics and then
>> change the semantics later if and when we implement what the standard
>> requires? That's not something we usually do, and I don't see why
>> it's a better idea in this case than it is in general. It's OK to
>> have non-standard behavior with non-standard syntax, but I think
>> non-standard behavior with standard syntax is something we want to try
>> hard to avoid.
>
>> I'm in favor of rejecting this patch in its entirety. The
>> functionality looks useful, but once you remove the syntax support, it
>> could just as easily be distributed as a contrib module rather than in
>> core.
>
> +1 ... if we're going to provide nonstandard behavior, it should be with
> a different syntax. Also, with a contrib module we could keep on
> providing the nonstandard behavior for people who still need it, even
> after implementing the standard properly.
Good point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
