On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> In short: we've already been over this territory, at length,
> and I am not excited by people trying to bikeshed it again
> after the fact, especially when no new arguments are being
> presented. Can we call the discussion closed, please?
Closed, at least from my side.
I'm grateful to have learned at least a bit more about when it's OK
to sacrifice backwards-compatibility.
Sorry for spamming this thread on that topic,
I'll instead wade through the archives to see what more I can learn
to hopefully become less confused.
Thanks.
