On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: > If we ship with this off the results are entirely predictable. It > will be somewhat surprising not to see any negative headlines about > it.
Can you, or can anyone, show a plausible example of something that would work under the old rules and work under the new rules but with a different meaning? I have to admit that I'm having some difficulty imagining exactly when that happens. Tom's examples upthread were not things that seemed all that likely. The most plausible example was probably a <= b || c, but the *old* interpretation of that is (a <= b) || c, so I'm having a little trouble taking that seriously as an example of where this would cause a problem. If the old interpretation had been a <= (b || c) and we were changing that to (a <= b) || c, then, yeah, that could break things for a lot of people, but not so many in this direction. Are there better examples of how this is going to be bite people? I really don't want to have another implicit-casting-changes type debacle here. -- 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
