Re: pgAdmin III: adjust code as per new EDB AS90 functions/procedures semantics

Le 21/02/2011 17:27, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 17:22, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 21, 2011 3:29 PM, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Nikhil.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any catalog changes with the refactoring, that change the
>>>> way parameters are represented that need to be reflected elsewhere in
>>>> pgFunction.cpp?
>>>>
>>>> Also, does anyone object to back-patching this? It's not a bug fix,
>>>> but it does mean that we don't support corresponding versions of PPAS
>>>> and PG in the same version of pgAdmin which seems undesirable.
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware they were supposed to be? Is that new, or has it always been?
>>
>> It's never really come up before, hence why I'm asking :-)
>
> No, I meant is the EDBAS version <x> supposed to "match" community pg
> version <x>?
>
> I haven't really looked at it since years ago, where iirc edbas was
> somewhere halfway between pg 8.2 and 8.3, and the version number
> didn't actually match either one..
>
>
>>> More to the point - is this the only thing needed to reach compatibility? If
>>> so, i guess we can make an exception. If not, then there is no point without
>>> doing a bunch of more patches for other things, in which case i will
>>> object...
>>
>> Compatibility; yes, I hope so. Functionality; probably not, but I'm
>> not going to suggest we back patch for new features. I'd like for it
>> to work without going bang, even if we don't support the latest
>> features yet.
>
> Oh yeah, compatibility is all we're discussing here. So in that case,
> I'm fine with backpatching it.
>

I'm not sure this is a really great idea to back-patch new compatibility
code. As two already agreed on back-patching, I'm fine with it.

--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com