On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> Robert, all, > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > I vote for rejecting it. DDL compatibility is less valuable than other > > > compatibility. The hypothetical affected application can change its > DDL to > > > placate PostgreSQL and use that modified DDL for all other databases, > too. > > > > OK. Any other votes? > > I haven't been as close to this as others, so perhaps my vote is only > 0.5 on this specific case, but that's my feeling on it. > I think we are being consistent as a project by enforcing strictness of input in this situation so I'll toss my +0.5/+1 here as well. David J.
