Re: Replacing plpgsql's lexer

On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 10:56 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > How do you know which is the offending function? If we force a full
> > application retest we put in place a significant barrier to upgrade.
> > That isn't useful for us as developers, nor is it useful for users.
>
> This is a fundamental conflict, not one that has a single simple answer.
>
> However this seems like a strange place to pick your battle.

I think you are right that you perceive a fundamental conflict and most
things I say become battles. That is not my choice and I will withdraw
from further discussion. My point has been made clearly and has not been
made to cause conflict. I've better things to do with my time than that,
though it's a shame you think that of me.

> As far as I'm concerned commercial support companies can put effort
> into developing backwards-compatibility modules which add no long-term
> value for their paying customers who need it today while the free
> software developers can keep improving the software for new users.

We will all doubtless make money from difficult upgrades, though that is
not my choice, nor that of my customers.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support