Tom Lane írta:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> But it would be broken in very obvious ways, no? It's not like it would
>> be silently broken and thus escape testing ...
> Well, if we wanted to adopt that approach, we should add the count to
> *all* SELECT tags not just a small subset. As the patch stands it
> seems entirely possible that a breakage would escape immediate notice.
> regards, tom lane
Can you give me an example that would return
plain "SELECT" after my new patch? I added
one more change to the patch, is it enough to return
"SELECT N" in every case now?
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-12 14:25:59|
|Subject: Re: NOT NULL violation and error-message |
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-01-12 14:20:10|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication status|