On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes: >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Changing the unit setting would also be a behavioral change. I think >>> what Bruce is suggesting is that this is simply not worth worrying about >>> in the back branches. > >> It seems pretty strange not to at least document it. And I'm not wild >> about adding documentation that says "Even though this value purports >> to be in kilobytes, it's really not", but I guess we can. > > Uh, no, the suggestion is to do *nothing* in the back branches. Yes > they're buggy, but without any field complaints, it's hard to argue that > anyone much cares. And I agree with Greg Smith that for anyone who does > care, a behavioral change in a minor release is much harder to deal with > than a change at a major release.
OK, so I talked to Bruce about this and I guess I've been persuaded that we should just apply the patch I sent upthread to HEAD and leave the back-branches broken, for fear of creating an incompatibility. I'll go do that unless someone wants to argue further... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
