| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2015-03-11 20:12:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMqHM+-ZLyrpHhmpJgsKj0ft5X=JhfgPfBno85z-+M8yA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> If there are no false positives, turning it on is zero impact
> (except for any performance impact involved in detecting the
> condition) for those who have no problems.
>
Think of this as a bug fix. Hopefully nobody was using the syntax before
because it didn't work right and if it did they were depending on the
broken behaviour. But once it's fixed it would be frustrating to have it be
fixed but have a warning saying "WARNING this query works fine now but
didn't work in previous versions". Especially since warnings in DML are
effectively fatal errors due to the frequency that they'll fire.
The warning can be useful for people testing code written in old versions
or writing code intended to be multi-version compatible. But it's not
something someone would want if they're writing code for 9.5.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-03-11 20:18:12 | Re: proposal: searching in array function - array_position |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-03-11 20:00:23 | Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators |