On 2012-11-26 21:45:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I gather that this is supposed to be back-patched to all supported
> > branches.
> FWIW, I don't like that patch any better than Robert does. It seems
> as likely to do harm as good. If there are places where libpq itself
> is leaving entries on the error stack, we should fix them -- retail.
> But it's not our business to clobber global state because there might
> be bugs in some other part of an application.
As there hasn't been any new input since this comment I am marking the
patch as "Rejected" in the CF application.
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tomas Vondra||Date: 2012-12-08 16:07:38|
|Subject: Re: PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction|
|Previous:||From: Dean Rasheed||Date: 2012-12-08 16:01:33|
|Subject: Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch]|