Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:45 PM, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Do we have consensus on doing this? Should we have the warning on
>> > by default, or off?
>>
>> I vote for defaulting the warning to off. If that proves to be too
>> problematic, I'd take that as a sign that this whole change is not as
>> low-impact as we're hoping, and maybe consider a rethink.
>
> Do we want to have three states? On, Off, and Auto? We can then change
> what Auto means in a point-release while letting people who have chosen On
> or Off have their wish.
>
> Auto could also consider some other data - like how long ago the database
> was initialized...
>
> 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.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company