Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators
Дата
Msg-id 3614.1426019692@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Ответы Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Well, I point again to standards_conforming_strings: Leave the warning
> off for one release (or more), then default to on for one (or more),
> then change the behavior.
> We can change the timeline, but I don't think the approach was unsound.

I'm not excited about that approach, for the reasons that were stated
upthread, mainly that there is little reason to think that anybody
paid any attention to the s_c_s transition till they were forced to.
Waiting to make the change will just allow more non-spec-compliant
SQL code to accumulate in the wild, without significantly reducing
the pain involved.

There's one more reason, too: the code I have is designed to give correct
warnings within the context of a parser that parses according to the
spec-compliant rules.  It's possible that a similar approach could be used
to generate correct warnings within a parsetree built according to the old
rules, but it would be entirely different in detail and would need a lot
of additional work to develop.  I don't particularly want to do that
additional work.
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: get_object_address support for additional object types
Следующее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: get_object_address support for additional object types