On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> In any case, the whole exercise is pointless if we don't change the
> visible behavior of array_dims et al. So I think the idea that this
> would be without visible consequence is silly. What's up for argument
> is just how much incompatibility is acceptable.
The only reasonable answer for this (a provably used, non-security,
non-standards violating, non-gross functionality breakage case) is
*zero*. Our historically cavalier attitude towards compatibility
breakage has been an immense disservice to our users and encourages
very bad upgrade habits and is, IMNSHO, embarrassing.
Changing the way array_dims works for a minor functionality
enhancement is gratuitous and should be done, if at all, via a loudly
advertised deprecation/replacement cycle with a guarding GUC (yes, I
hate them too, but not nearly as much as the expense of qualifying
vast code bases against random compatibility breakages every release).
merlin