Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

On 1/9/17 5:12 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Agreed: If you want to break compatibility, pushing a new language is
> the better way than GUC.   If you got consensus on this, having both
> languages side by side supported for a while (maybe 4-5 releases) is
> they way to go, and finally the only language is frozen and moved to
> extension.  But this is a lot of work and aggravation, are you *sure*
> you can only get what you want with a full compatibility break?

FWIW, that work and aggravation part is what I hoped to avoid with GUCs.

I do think that whichever route we go, we're going to be stuck 
supporting the old version for a LONG time. A big part of why 
standard_conforming_strings was so ugly is users didn't have enough time 
to adjust. If we'd had that enabled by default for 4-5 releases it 
wouldn't have been nearly as much of an issue.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)