Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think if I had to pick a proposal, I'd say we should disable
>>>> #2 for the specific case of casting a composite type to
>>>> something else.
>
>>> Well, then let's do that. It's not the exact fix I'd pick, but
>>> it's clearly better than nothing, so I'm willing to sign on to
>>> it as a compromise position.
>
>> So, I'd rather scrap #2 entirely; but if that really would break
>> much working code, +1 for ignoring it when it would cast a
>> composite to something else.
>
> Well, assuming for the sake of argument that we have consensus on
> fixing it like that, is this something we should just do in HEAD,
> or should we back-patch into 8.4 and 9.0? We'll be hearing about
> it nigh indefinitely if we don't, but on the other hand this isn't
> the kind of thing we like to change in released branches.
I can't see back-patching it -- it's a behavior change.
On the bright side, in five years after the release where it's
removed, it will be out of support. Problem reports caused by it
should be tapering off before that....
-Kevin