On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 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. > > I grow weary of discussions in which somebody argues that consideration > X always outweighs every other consideration. We're doing engineering > here, not theology, and there are always tradeoffs to be made. In this > case it's my opinion that a small syntax adjustment is the best > tradeoff.
Me, too. But I don't agree with your particular choice of small syntax adjustment. Maybe we should just let the issue drop for now. Nobody's actually complained about this that I can recall; it's just a comment that's been sitting there in pg_dump for ages, and I was inspired to think of it again because of the SQL/MED work. I'm not sufficiently in love with this idea to walk through fire for it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
