PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: [HACKERS] PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings
Next: Package namespace and Safe init cleanup for plperl [PATCH]
From: "Kevin Grittner" on 29 Jan 2010 14:55 Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote: > With the release of Postgres 9.0, should we consider changing the > default for 'standard_conforming_strings'? If not now, when? -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "David E. Wheeler" on 29 Jan 2010 14:57 On Jan 29, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > With the release of Postgres 9.0, should we consider changing the > default for 'standard_conforming_strings'? +1 David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 29 Jan 2010 15:28 Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: > With the release of Postgres 9.0, should we consider changing the > default for 'standard_conforming_strings'? I'm inclined to think we're going to have enough problems without that. Changing that default will break, approximately speaking, every single Postgres client app. Do you really think more than epsilon of them are clean and ready for such a change? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 29 Jan 2010 15:42 I wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: >> With the release of Postgres 9.0, should we consider changing the >> default for 'standard_conforming_strings'? > I'm inclined to think we're going to have enough problems without that. BTW, core already had that discussion, but maybe I should repeat it to try to forestall any other "since this is going to be 9.0, let's break backwards compatibility in a big way!" proposals. Now is not the time to be making big changes; we are much too late in the devel cycle to work through all the possible consequences. Because we switched from it's-8.5 to it's-9.0 at such a late stage, we really need to consider that that's only a marketing version number and technical compatibility decisions should be made the same way as for any other major release. Perhaps at some point we will choose to do a major version bump where we really do clean up a lot of bad backwards-compatibility things. That needs to be done in a deliberate fashion with a lot of advance planning; and things should get broken near the beginning of the devel cycle, not the end. [ still bearing scars from the 8.3 implicit-cast business, which we didn't think would generate nearly the backlash it did... ] regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Bruce Momjian on 29 Jan 2010 15:45
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: > > With the release of Postgres 9.0, should we consider changing the > > default for 'standard_conforming_strings'? > > I'm inclined to think we're going to have enough problems without that. > Changing that default will break, approximately speaking, every single > Postgres client app. Do you really think more than epsilon of them > are clean and ready for such a change? Well, if they aren't ready now, then we might as well say we are never going to change it and update the documentation and TODO list to reflect that --- we have had standard_conforming_strings since 2005. We can't keep pretending this will happen if we have no intention of doing it. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |