On 11/07/2015 07:12 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> What I'm wondering about is whether to back-patch this.  It's possible
>> that people have written patterns like this and not realized that they
>> aren't doing quite what's expected.  Getting a failure instead might not
>> be desirable in a minor release.  On the other hand, wrong answers are
>> wrong answers.
> I would say wrong answers are wrong answers. It's hard to believe
> there are many people doing this but if they are they're certainly
> expecting the look-ahead to actually test that it's looking at the
> same thing as the capturing parens. It might even be something
> security-critical like parsing an connection string or something like
> that. I can't see it's doing people any favours to let their code
> continue doing something unexpected to avoid new errors.


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to