Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 08:05:59AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> This looks fine to me, as a search-and-replace on current_timestamp is
> easy. However, we need to do a better job of warning people about the
> change than we did with interval() to "interval"().
>
> Actually, can I make the proposal that *any* change that breaks
> backward compatibility be mentioned in both the new version
> announcement and on the download page? This would prevent a lot of
> grief. If I'm kept informed of these changes, I'll be happy to write
> up a user-friendly announcement/instructions on how to cope with the
> change.

I'd suggest we (for values of we that probably resolve to Bruce
or a Bruce triggered Josh ;-) start a new doc, right now, for
7.4_USER_VISIBLE_CHANGES, or some other, catchy title. In it, document,
with example SQL snippets, if need be, the change from previous behavior,
_when the patch is committed_. In fact, y'all could be hardnosed about
not accepting a user visible syntax changing patch without it touching
this file. Such a document would be invaluable for database migration.

On another note, this discussion is happening on GENERAL and SQL, but
is getting pretty technical - should someone more it to HACKERS to get
input from developers who don't hang out here?

Ross