On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> Kinda -- what I'm saying is you just don't go around changing function
>> behaviors to make them 'better' unless the affected behavior was
>> specifically reserved as undefined. The fact is nobody knows how many
>> users will be affected and the extent of the ultimate damage (pro tip:
>> it's always more and worse than expected); I'm astonished it's even
>> being considered.
>
> Well, I think the question is how many people have such arrays that will
> be effected. If we don't do something, we live with this odd behavior
> forever. We have been willing to make some bold decisions in the past
> to improve user experience, and it mostly has worked out well. I
> disagree that it is always worse than expected.
Well, you can have the last word (although 'bold' was an interesting
word choice, heh) -- I feel guilty enough about beating up Brendan
already. I feel this way every time compatibility changes come up, so
it's nothing specific to this patch really.
merlin
