| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators |
| Date: | 2015-03-10 16:45:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZpkRCW9rjRjYaDaD37Lm_ATt+pbvrGZEDXrKURk_puzQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-03-10 16:47:43 | Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-03-10 16:37:19 | Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators |