Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> To this point, and perhaps to the other regarding VIEW definitions to
> some extent, while the solution would move us from 80% to 90% of "things
> in PG that might cause a restore from an older pg_dump to fail", I think
> another metric we should consider is "% of our user base, particularly
> those more junior, that would benefit". I feel that number to be >10%,
> and growing. Additionally, those that this would really help are the
> same people who don't have complex views and/or stored procedures.
Um, I rather doubt that experience level has much of anything to do with
one's probability of getting blindsided by new SQL syntax.
regards, tom lane
PS: unless your definition of "experienced" is "sits on the SQL standards
committee" ;-)
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
