Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators

On 3/10/15 1:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:45 PM, David G. Johnston
>> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I would vote for Auto meaning On in the .0 release.
>
>> I don't think users will appreciate an auto value whose meaning might
>> change at some point, and I doubt we've have much luck identifying the
>> correct point, either. Users will upgrade over the course of years,
>> not months, and will not necessarily complete their application
>> retesting within any particular period of time thereafter.
>
> Yeah, I think that's too cute by far. And people do not like things like
> this changing in point releases. If we do this, I envision it as being
> on by default in 9.5 and then changing the default in 9.6 or 9.7 or so.

Well, I point again to standards_conforming_strings: Leave the warning
off for one release (or more), then default to on for one (or more),
then change the behavior.

We can change the timeline, but I don't think the approach was unsound.