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.
+1 -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
Description: OpenPGP digital signature