X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75F7D1B518 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:28:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15641-08 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 17:28:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77AB6D1B522 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 17:28:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h88KScAn000454; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:28:38 -0400 (EDT) To: Andrew Dunstan Cc: Postgresql Hackers Subject: Re: plpgsql doesn't coerce boolean expressions to boolean In-reply-to: <3F5CC9FE.5030103@dunslane.net> References: <15403.1063035632@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3F5CAC68.30502@pse-consulting.de> <19042.1063039625@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3F5CC9FE.5030103@dunslane.net> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan message dated "Mon, 08 Sep 2003 14:27:10 -0400" Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:28:38 -0400 Message-ID: <453.1063052918@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200309/575 X-Sequence-Number: 43587 Andrew Dunstan writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> How would we "deprecate" it exactly? Throw a NOTICE? >> > Release notes, I guess. A NOTICE would be fine as long as it didn't > result in a flood of them. If that happened once at parse time that > should be fine, I think. It would be relatively difficult to do that; given the way plpgsql is structured, a runtime message would be a lot easier. > What's the practice in deprecating other "features"? We generally don't ;-). Certainly 7.4 contains bigger incompatible changes than this one, and so have most of our prior releases. regards, tom lane