Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)

From: Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)
Date: 2013-03-25 14:13:08
Message-ID: CADxJZo2S5FXemG3mfweYZozKusRFH1_W5DzL7MNYOETkfNmEww@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 26 March 2013 00:30, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On 25 March 2013 13:02, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Brendan, how hard would it be to create a GUC for backwards-compatible
>>> behavior?
>
>> Good idea.
>
> No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
> semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
>

They are? Well okay then. I'm not deeply attached to the GUC thing,
it just seemed like a friendly way to ease the upgrade path. But if
it's dangerous somehow I'm happy to drop it.

Cheers,
BJ

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2013-03-25 14:26:24 Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2013-03-25 13:51:45 Re: Enabling Checksums