| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems |
| Date: | 2018-05-20 20:38:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbBOmFiEp4npbQPDN9-Qc6Czoi04=H96YnUmLLBD-9VFQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> There have been
> cases where we chose to not back-patch an unambiguous bug fix even
> though it was clear that incorrect user-visible behavior remained.
>
The risk here is significantly reduced since the existing user-visible
behavior is an error which presumably no one is relying upon. Between that
and being able to conform to the standard syntax for a long-standing
feature I would say the benefit outweighs the cost and risk.
+0.5 to back-patching
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-20 21:16:45 | Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-05-20 20:13:10 | Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems |