On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> What risk? And at least we'd be trying to do it cleanly, in a manner
>>> that should work for at least 99% of users. AFAICT, Heikki's proposal
>>> is "break it for everyone, and damn the torpedoes".
>
>> I must be confused. I thought Heikki's proposal was "fix it in 9.1,
>> because incompatibilities are an expected part of major release
>> upgrades, but don't break it in 9.0 and prior, because it's not
>> particularly important and we don't want to change behavior or risk
>> breaking things in minor releases".
>
> No, nobody was proposing changing it before 9.1 (or at least I didn't
> think anybody was). What's under discussion is how much effort to put
> into making a 9.0-to-9.1 upgrade go smoothly for people who have the
> function installed.
Oh, I see, never mind me then... feel free to make that go smoothly. :-)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
