On 9 June 2012 17:19, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>> On 9 June 2012 16:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change,
>
>> It was hardly a subject of marked disagreement.
>
> It was hardly a subject of discussion, as yet.
>
> Personally I'm pretty doubtful about suddenly starting to throw errors
> for syntax we've accepted without complaint for over nine years, on
> merely the grounds that we *might* get around to making it do something
> different in the future. You yourself have complained loudly about
> compatibility breaks that were considerably better founded than this.
>
> Possibly a NOTICE or WARNING (with some other text than this) would be
> a better choice for warning people that a compatibility break might
> be coming.
OK, I will revert pending further discussion and agreement.
The reason for action was simply to close an ubobtrusive open item,
but its clear it wasn't.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
