| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Regina Obe <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 behavior change with set returning (funct).* |
| Date: | 2016-03-23 22:05:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20160323220527.GT3127@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* David G. Johnston (david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > In the meantime I suppose there's a case to be made for preserving
> > bug compatibility as much as possible.
> >
> > So anyway the question is whether to commit the attached or not.
>
> +1 for commit - I'll trust Tom on the quality of the patch :)
I'm not going to object to it. All-in-all, I suppose '+0' from me.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-23 22:08:05 | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-03-23 21:58:46 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 behavior change with set returning (funct).* |