Hello, Robert.
You wrote:
RH> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Pavel Golub <pavel@microolap.com> wrote:
>> RH> Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
>> RH> we still support for backwards compatibility with versions < 7.3. We
>> RH> can fix the immediate problem with something like the attached.
>>
>> This patch is ugly. Sorry, Robert, but it's true.
RH> No hard feelings here. If you, as the reporter of the problem, don't
RH> feel that it's serious enough to warrant back-patching a fix, then I'm
RH> not going to insist. However, if we don't do what I've proposed here,
RH> then I think 8.4 and 9.0 and probably 9.1 are going to need to stay as
RH> they are, because...
>> RH> (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy
>> RH> syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? (Given that the
>> RH> workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say "no", but could be
>> RH> persuaded otherwise.)
>>
>> +1 for this. Pre-7.3 syntax is dead in fact for many years.
RH> ...this is not something we're going to back-patch.
Patches needed for 9.0 and 9.1 only, because this is new format
comparing with 8.x
--
With best wishes,Pavel mailto:pavel@gf.microolap.com