Tom, all, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > While I'm generally not one to vote for dropping backwards-compatibility > features, I have to say that I find #4 the most attractive of these > options. It would result in getting rid of boatloads of under-tested > code, whereas #2 would really just add more, and #3 at best maintains > the status quo complexity-wise.
+1. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature