Revert optimistic and sloppy changes from 3705e3b2 - DBI does not always DTRT

Revert optimistic and sloppy changes from 3705e3b2 - DBI does not always DTRT

In addition I rebroke the issue from RT#79576, ffs man pay attention

<ribasushi> general question - does DBI guarantee that objects with stringification overload will get their stringification called
<ribasushi> or is this up to the DBD (and thus will vary)
<mje> ribasushi, I had an issue in DBD::ODBC ages ago with this - looking for it now
<mje>  rt 78838 - bind_param does not correctly stringify blessed objects when connected to MS SQL Server, magic was not being applied in DBD::ODBC case
<mje> so I think the answer to your question is DBI does not but DBDs should if they are written correctly
<ribasushi> I wonder why DBI does not
<timbunce_> ribasushi: no explicit ‘guarantee’ but I think any place it doesn’t is probably a bug.
<ribasushi> timbunce_: given mje had to do magic in his DBD, I suspect DBI has a "hole" somewhere then no?
<ribasushi> basically I was looking into removing the explicit stringifications in DBIC, hence the question
<ribasushi> if there is consensus that DBI ought to do it all on its own, we could test for it, fix it up, and then I disable the checks when I detect a sufficiently advanced DBI.pm
<timbunce> yes, ribasushi: “… we could test for it, fix it up, and then I disable the checks when I detect a sufficiently advanced DBI.pm or something”
<timbunce> :)
<ribasushi> nod ;)