I concur. about holding for 7.2. Though this is of limited danger, it
is not something that is really in hight demand.
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> > I *assume* that this will have trouble making it in to 7.1, and since
> > keywords are likely added this may have trouble with 7.1.x (not sure
> > about that; perhaps the lex-generated token values never make it into
> > the database tables, but they *do* propagate into structures used deeper
> > in the backend).
> Since he didn't add a new parsetree node type, there wouldn't be any
> database compatibility issue AFAIK. I'm pretty certain that keyword
> token values never get into stored rules.
> However, there is our self-imposed "no new features during beta" rule.
> This looks like a relatively harmless patch, but do we want to break
> that rule for something that people are not beating down our doors for?
> I'd vote for holding it for 7.2, I think.
> regards, tom lane
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Robert B. Easter||Date: 2001-01-12 05:41:26|
|Subject: Re: sql.sgml take 3|
|Previous:||From: Lincoln Yeoh||Date: 2001-01-12 03:08:40|
|Subject: Re: Lock on arbitrary string feature|