On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 7:41 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, give me a break. The previous behavior obviously hasn't been > tested either, and is broken on its face. If someone *had* complained > about it, I imagine you would have promptly fixed it and likely > back-patched the fix, probably in under 24 hours from the time of the > report.
You're asking us to imagine a counterfactual. But this counterfactual bug report would have to describe a real practical problem. The details would matter. It's reasonable to suppose that we haven't seen such a bug report for a reason. I can't speak for Tom. My position on this is that it's better to leave it alone at this time, given the history, and the lack of complaints from users. > I find it difficult to take seriously the contention that > anyone is expecting \d dlsgjdsghj.sdhg.l.dsg.jkhsdg.foo.bar to work > like \d foo.bar, or that they would even prefer that behavior over an > error message. You're carefully avoiding addressing that question in > favor of having a discussion of backward compatibility, but a better > term for what we're talking about here would be bug-compatibility. Let's assume that it is bug compatibility. Is that intrinsically a bad thing? -- Peter Geoghegan
