On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Pavel Golub <pavel@microolap.com> wrote:
> RH> Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
> RH> we still support for backwards compatibility with versions < 7.3. We
> RH> can fix the immediate problem with something like the attached.
>
> This patch is ugly. Sorry, Robert, but it's true.
No hard feelings here. If you, as the reporter of the problem, don't
feel that it's serious enough to warrant back-patching a fix, then I'm
not going to insist. However, if we don't do what I've proposed here,
then I think 8.4 and 9.0 and probably 9.1 are going to need to stay as
they are, because...
> RH> (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy
> RH> syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? (Given that the
> RH> workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say "no", but could be
> RH> persuaded otherwise.)
>
> +1 for this. Pre-7.3 syntax is dead in fact for many years.
...this is not something we're going to back-patch.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
