Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only reasonable answer for this (a provably used, non-security,
>> non-standards violating, non-gross functionality breakage case) is
>> *zero*.
> +1.
Well, if we're going to take that hard a line on it, then we can't
change anything about array data storage or the existing functions'
behavior; which leaves us with either doing nothing at all, or
inventing new functions that have saner behavior while leaving the
old ones in place.
regards, tom lane