On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> Reading again the thread, it seems that my previous post [1] was a bit
>>> misunderstood. My position is to not introduce any new behavior
>>> changes in 9.6, so we could just make the FIRST NUM grammar equivalent
>>> to NUM.
>>>
>>> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRDvJn18e54ccNpOP1A2_iUN6-iU=4nJgmMgiAgvcSDKA@mail.gmail.com
>>
>> I misunderstood your intent, then. But I still stand by what I did
>> understand, namely that 'k (...)' should mean 'any k (...)'. It's much
>> more natural than having it mean 'first k (...)' and I also think it
>> will be more frequent in practice.
>>
>
> I think so as well.
Well, I agree, but I think making behavior changes after rc1 is a
non-starter. It's better to live with the incompatibility than to
change the behavior so close to release. At least, that's my
position. Getting the release out on time with a minimal bug count is
more important to me than a minor incompatibility in the meaning of
one GUC.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company