On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:14:15AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
> > semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
>
> Really? I thought that standard_conforming_strings was a great example
> of how to ease our users into a backwards-compatibility break. My
> thought was that we change the behavior in 9.4, provide a
> backwards-compatible GUC with warnings in the logs for two versions, and
> then take the GUC away.
standard_conforming_strings is not a good example because it took 5+
years to implement the change, and issued warnings about non-standard
use for several releases --- it is not a pattern to follow.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +