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‚Äč here as well.

David J.

Reply via email to