On Jan 3, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In practice the reasonable engineering alternatives may just be to do
> what KaiGai's patch does, or to do nothing. In that case I think a
> argument can be made for the latter. Nobody has ever complained about
> this from the field AFAIR; but we might get complaints if we disable
> cases that used to work fine.
Maybe. The current behavior of allowing the rename but then breaking
queries certainly isn't awesome. I think if someone is willing to
implement a more careful check we should accept it.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-01-03 19:13:28|
|Subject: Re: win32 socket definition|
|Previous:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2010-01-03 18:53:34|
|Subject: Re: Testing with concurrent sessions|