Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: revised hstore patch

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane), pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: revised hstore patch
Date: 2009-07-23 06:41:22
Message-ID: FA73FB99-D763-4A89-AEFE-30038351CF8C@kineticode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Andrew Gierth wrote:

> To me (A) is looking like the obvious choice (the people smart enough
> to be using hstore-new from CVS already can handle the minor pain of
> updating the on-disk format).
>
> Unless I hear any objections I will proceed accordingly...

Yes, that seems like the smarter path to me, too, as long as the new  
format does not continue the bug, of course.

But should the "bug" be fixed in maintenance branches? I'm thinking,  
since its likelihood is so rare, probably not.

Best,

David

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2009-07-23 06:44:13
Subject: Re: extension facility (was: revised hstore patch)
Previous:From: Tsutomu YamadaDate: 2009-07-23 06:04:52
Subject: Re: [PATCH] "could not reattach to shared memory" on Windows

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group