On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 1:25 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 2019-04-12 19:52, Robert Treat wrote:
> > It is clear to me that the docs are wrong, but I don't see anything
> > inherently incorrect about the code itself. Do you have suggestions
> > for how you would like to see the code comments improved?
>
> The question is perhaps whether we want to document that non-matching
> data types do work. It happens to work now, but do we always want to
> guarantee that? There is talk of a binary mode for example.
>
Whether we *want* to document that it works, documenting that it
doesn't work when it does can't be the right answer. If you want to
couch the language to leave the door open that we may not support this
the same way in the future I wouldn't be opposed to that, but at this
point we will have three releases with the current behavior in
production, so if we decide to change the behavior, it is likely going
to break certain use cases. That may be ok, but I'd expect a
documentation update to accompany a change that would cause such a
breaking change.
Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net