Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 17 November 2011 03:54, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >?It's not reasonable to suppose > > that nobody is using it today. > > I didn't suppose that no one is using it, but that those that are > using it are unaware of the risks with prefix validation, and that > there will be a rude awakening for them. > > > Ergo, we can't just summarily break > > backwards compatibility on the grounds that we don't like the design. > > Heck, we don't even have a field bug report that the design limitation > > is causing any real problems for real users ... so IMO, the claims that > > this is dangerously broken are a bit overblown. > > I think that's it's rather unlikely that removing hyphenation and > prefix validation would adversely affect anyone, provided that it was > well documented and wasn't applied to stable branches. If it were up > to me, I might remove validation from stable branches but keep > hyphenation, while removing both for 9.2 . After all, hyphenation will > break anyway, so they're worse off continuing to rely on hyphenation > when it cannot actually be relied on.
Clarification: Our policy for patching back-branches is that the bug has to affect many users, be serious, and the fix has to be easily tested. For a user-visible change (which this would be), the criteria is even more strict. I don't see any of this reaching the level that it needs to be backpatched, so I think we have to accept that this will be 9.2-only change. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
