On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> But I don't think we're required to support that case. If the user >> does a non-standard install, it's their job to deal with the fallout. > > Well, I'll write the script anyway, since *I* need it. I'm installing > this on a 9.0 database which will be later upgraded to 9.1. > > However, before I write all this, I'd like to settle the question of > acceptability. What do I need to do to make it OK to break backwards > compatibility for this? I feel strongly that I'm correcting it to the > behavior users expect, but that's not statistically backed. > > I don't want to spend several hours writing scripts so that it can be > rejected *for that reason*.
I'm OK with the proposed behavior change and I agree that it's probably what people want, but I am awfully suspicious that those extra casts are going to break something you haven't thought about. It might be worth posting a rough version first just to see if I (or someone else) can break it before you spend a lot of time on it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
