Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> >> With the release of Postgres 9.0, should we consider changing the
> >> default for 'standard_conforming_strings'?
>
> > I'm inclined to think we're going to have enough problems without that.
>
> BTW, core already had that discussion, but maybe I should repeat it
> to try to forestall any other "since this is going to be 9.0, let's
> break backwards compatibility in a big way!" proposals. Now is not
> the time to be making big changes; we are much too late in the devel
> cycle to work through all the possible consequences. Because we
> switched from it's-8.5 to it's-9.0 at such a late stage, we really
> need to consider that that's only a marketing version number and
> technical compatibility decisions should be made the same way as
> for any other major release.
>
> Perhaps at some point we will choose to do a major version bump where
> we really do clean up a lot of bad backwards-compatibility things. That
> needs to be done in a deliberate fashion with a lot of advance planning;
> and things should get broken near the beginning of the devel cycle, not
> the end.
>
> [ still bearing scars from the 8.3 implicit-cast business, which we
> didn't think would generate nearly the backlash it did... ]
I did ask this same question for the 8.5/9.0 release in April of 2009 so
don't say I am only asking about this at the end of development cycles:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-04/msg00512.php
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
