Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> > My feeling is basically this- either we make a clean break to the new > > syntax and catalog representation, or we just use the same approach the > > existing attriubtes use. Long term, I think your proposed syntax and an > > int64 representation is better but it'll mean a lot of client code that > > has to change. I don't really like the idea of changing the syntax but > > not the representation, nor am I thrilled with the idea of supporting > > both syntaxes, and changing the syntax without changing the > > representation just doesn't make sense to me as I think we'd end up > > wanting to change it later, making clients have to update their code > > twice. > > I don't see any reason why it has to be both or neither. I was thinking we would change the catalogs and implement the new syntax for new and old settings, but also keep the old syntax working as a backward compatibility measure. I don't see what's so terrible about continuing to support the old syntax; we do that in COPY and EXPLAIN, for example. -- Álvaro Herrera 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