On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure whether allowing that would be good or bad. I see no
>> obvious killer reason why it'd be bad, but it seems like the kind of
>> thing we might regret someday. pg_global is in some sense an
>> implementation artifact, so allowing users to depend on it might be
>> bad in the long run.
> Agreed, it feels scary to allow it.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-02-04 17:34:33|
|Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-02-04 17:28:30|
|Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings|