Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
On 9/23/21 10:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
That's fine, but if that is the policy, then the data should in fact be valid (to the best of our ability) for the named location.
Oh, sorry, I should have been clear that I was talking about Zones and not Links. Links don't follow that rule, and never have.
I think that's a pretty arbitrary and wrongheaded policy, mainly because end users don't know the difference between a zone and a link. All that they can see is whether the data associated with a name is correct for that location; and I maintain that it always should be. Basically the problem here is that the link mechanism, which was (I suppose) designed to serve just to provide common aliases for a zone name, has been abused to allow substitution of more- or less- accurate data for the same zone name. That wasn't a good idea, and its shortcomings are becoming more obvious as more zones are subjected to this abuse. regards, tom lane