On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 16:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I think the realistic options are (1) change the syntax > non-backward-compatibly or (2) don't add any functionality here.
(3) think of another way. I'm not keen to explain to people how we broke their applications just because we wanted to add new functionality AND avoid one shift/reduce conflict in our SQL grammar. Avoiding changes to user code isn't third on that list of three things I want, its first. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
