Re: Open items list for 8.1

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Open items list for 8.1
Date: 2005-09-28 21:35:58
Message-ID: 20050928183348.Q1477@ganymede.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature
>>
>> I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb
>> (to add new sequence functions), so if we do that we may as well also
>> fix the 32/64bit risk mentioned here:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg01241.php
>>
>> Also, the floor seems open to discuss whether or not to revert the file
>> access functions to their pre-beta2 APIs. I've got mixed feelings about
>> that myself, but you can certainly make a case that the current
>> definitions are not enough cleaner than what was there before to justify
>> changing. This seems particularly true for pg_cancel_backend(), which
>> already was in the core in 8.0.
>
> I am thinking we should keep things as they are now.

The problem isn't whether or not they should be changed, the problem is
that they were changed *during* beta AND *against* the direction that
discussion on these changes went ... pre-beta would have been more
acceptable, but pre-feature freeze would have been much preferred ... but
*post-beta*, this should never have happened unless it created a critical
bug, which I have seen no arguments that it did ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2005-09-28 21:50:13 Re: Vacuum questions...
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-09-28 20:24:18 Re: effective SELECT from child tables