Re: Closing some 8.4 open items

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Closing some 8.4 open items
Date: 2009-04-09 18:24:28
Message-ID: 49DE3D5C.1040109@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/9/09 10:42 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>>>> Here is my thinking, and considering that that would basically involve a
>>>>> forward-looking design decision right now, I would support dropping the
>>>>> cardinality() function from 8.4 (if people agree that this is in fact the
>>>>> design decision to make).
>>>> At this point I'd support that too.
>>> +1
>> Since there were no objections, and there is no time left before beta1,
>> I'm going to go ahead and remove cardinality().
>
> Do we want a TODO?
>

No, I don't think so. It would just be a tag-on to whatever TODO we
already have about implementing multisets and collections.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jignesh K. Shah 2009-04-09 18:26:03 Re: Closing some 8.4 open items
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-04-09 18:05:53 Re: TODO item