Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators

On 3/10/15 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> There's one more reason, too: the code I have is designed to give correct
> warnings within the context of a parser that parses according to the
> spec-compliant rules.  It's possible that a similar approach could be used
> to generate correct warnings within a parsetree built according to the old
> rules, but it would be entirely different in detail and would need a lot
> of additional work to develop.  I don't particularly want to do that
> additional work.

So you want to change the precedence behavior in the next release and
have a warning about "this code would have worked differently before".
My understanding was that we would keep the precedence behavior for a
while but warn about "this code would work differently in the future".