On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Reading again the thread, it seems that my previous post [1] was a bit >>> misunderstood. My position is to not introduce any new behavior >>> changes in 9.6, so we could just make the FIRST NUM grammar equivalent >>> to NUM. >>> >>> [1]: >>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRDvJn18e54ccNpOP1A2_iUN6-iU=4njgmmgiagvcs...@mail.gmail.com >> >> I misunderstood your intent, then. But I still stand by what I did >> understand, namely that 'k (...)' should mean 'any k (...)'. It's much >> more natural than having it mean 'first k (...)' and I also think it >> will be more frequent in practice. >> > > I think so as well.
Well, I agree, but I think making behavior changes after rc1 is a non-starter. It's better to live with the incompatibility than to change the behavior so close to release. At least, that's my position. Getting the release out on time with a minimal bug count is more important to me than a minor incompatibility in the meaning of one GUC. -- 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
