On 9 June 2012 17:19, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 9 June 2012 16:46, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change, > >> It was hardly a subject of marked disagreement. > > It was hardly a subject of discussion, as yet. > > Personally I'm pretty doubtful about suddenly starting to throw errors > for syntax we've accepted without complaint for over nine years, on > merely the grounds that we *might* get around to making it do something > different in the future. You yourself have complained loudly about > compatibility breaks that were considerably better founded than this. > > Possibly a NOTICE or WARNING (with some other text than this) would be > a better choice for warning people that a compatibility break might > be coming.
OK, I will revert pending further discussion and agreement. The reason for action was simply to close an ubobtrusive open item, but its clear it wasn't. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
