On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: >> On the other hand, discrepancies in between command line arguments >> processing in our tools are already not helping our users (even if >> pg_dump -d seems to have been fixed along the years); so much so that >> I'm having a hard time finding any upside into having a different set of >> command line argument capabilities for the same tool depending on the >> major version. > >> We are not talking about a new feature per se, but exposing a feature >> that about every other command line tool we ship have. So I think I'm >> standing on my position that it should get backpatched as a "fix". > > I don't think that argument holds any water at all. There would still > be differences in command line argument capabilities out there --- > they'd just be between minor versions not major ones. That's not any > easier for people to deal with. And what will you say to someone whose > application got broken by a minor-version update?
I heartily agree. I can say from firsthand experience that when minor releases break things for customers (and they do), the customers get *really* cranky. Based on recent experience, I think we should be tightening our standards for what gets back-patched, not loosening them. (No, I don't have a specific example off-hand, sorry.) -- 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
