On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> wrote:
> On 12/30/2014 07:43 AM, David G Johnston wrote: > >> Tom Lane-2 wrote >> >>> Bernd Helmle < >>> >> >> mailings@ >>> >> >> > writes: >>> >>>> --On 29. Dezember 2014 12:55:11 -0500 Tom Lane < >>>> >>> >> tgl@.pa >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Given the lack of previous complaints, this probably isn't backpatching >>>>> material, but it sure seems like a bit of attention to consistency >>>>> would be warranted here. >>>>> >>>> >>> Now that i read it i remember a client complaining about this some time >>>> ago. I forgot about it, but i think there's value in it to backpatch. >>>> >>> >>> Hm. Last night I wrote the attached draft patch, which I was intending >>> to apply to HEAD only. The argument against back-patching is basically >>> that this might change the interpretation of scripts that had been >>> accepted silently before. For example >>> \set ECHO_HIDDEN NoExec >>> will now select "noexec" mode whereas before you silently got "on" mode. >>> In one light this is certainly a bug fix, but in another it's just >>> definitional instability. >>> >>> If we'd gotten a field bug report we might well have chosen to >>> back-patch, >>> though, and perhaps your client's complaint counts as that. >>> >>> Opinions anyone? >>> >> >> -0.5 for back patching >> >> The one thing supporting this is that we'd potentially be fixing scripts >> that are broken but don't know it yet. But the downside of changing >> active >> settings for working scripts - even if they are only accidentally working >> - >> is enough to counter that for me. Being more liberal in our acceptance of >> input is more feature than bug fix even if we document that we accept more >> items. >> > > It is more about being consistent then liberal. Personally I think a > situation where for one variable 0 = off but for another 0 = on, is a bug > > I can sorta buy the consistency angle but what will seal it for me is script portability - the ability to write a script and instructions using the most current release and have it run on previous versions without having to worry about this kind of incompatibility. So, +1 for back patching from me. David J.
