On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Greg Stark [via PostgreSQL] <
ml-node+s1045698n5816903...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Kevin Grittner <[hidden email]
> <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5816903&i=0>> wrote:
> > It was actually rather disappointing to hear that we had a
> > conforming implementation and changed away from it circa the 7.2
> > release; and even more disturbing to hear that decision is still
> > being defended on the grounds that there's no point providing
> > standard conforming behavior if we can think of different behavior
> > that we feel is more useful.  We should have both.
> I don't think the behaviour was standards-compliant in 7.2 either. For
> that matter, I can't think of any circumstance where the standard
> behaviour is useful. There's absolutely no way to write correct code
> using it.
​And forcing people to change their data types to migrate to PostgreSQL is
undesirable IF our type is usefully equivalent to others in the majority of
situations - though I don't know if that is actually the case.​

David J.

View this message in context: 
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply via email to