Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > One thing I just noticed is that the spec does not consider > GLOBAL/LOCAL to be optional --- per spec you *must* write one or the > other in front of TEMPORARY. Agreed. > So we could adopt the view that omitting this keyword > implies our current non-spec behavior (which is far too useful to > give up, spec compliance or no) while writing one or the other > selects the spec behavior. +1 (+1) > However, if we're going to do that then we should start > throwing warnings for use of the keywords, preferably before the > release in which they actually start doing something different. We might actually want to have a major release which rejects the standard syntax before the release where we implement standard behavior for it. (After, of course, a major release which issues the warning.) When we get to the point of breaking existing code (which is inevitable if we move to compliance here), it's better to break in a clear and predictable way.... Of course, that would mean that implementation would be three releases away (warn, disable syntax, reenable syntax with standard semantics). -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
