On 12/30/2014 09:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bernd Helmle <maili...@oopsware.de> writes:
--On 29. Dezember 2014 12:55:11 -0500 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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?
r
I got caught by this with ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK on 9.3 just this afternoon
before remembering this thread. So there's a field report :-)
+0.75 for backpatching (It's hard to imagine someone relying on the bad
behaviour, but you never know).
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
