Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings
Date: 2010-02-03 21:35:43
Message-ID: m2pr4mhuj4.fsf@hi-media.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> And that's just for the core code. I don't want to blindside driver
> writers and other third-party authors with a change like this made at
> the end of the cycle. If we do it at the beginning of the 9.1 devel
> cycle, no one will have room to argue that they didn't have adequate
> notice ... but they sure will be able to make that complaint if we
> do it now.

Well, in fact my impression is that the time third-party authors are
going to begin to look at things is not alpha1 but beta1. Because until
beta comes out you don't know what's in there. Some commits could get
reverted before entering beta is what is being said, the goal being to
be able to reach code stability in non-infinite time...

In my mind the fact that beta is meant to be about 2 to 3 months old is
for those problems to get solved before release. In short, I am the
blind driver who's not seeing what problem you're talking about.

Regards,
--
dim

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erik Rijkers 2010-02-03 21:39:52 testing cvs HEAD - HS/SR - cannot stat
Previous Message Nathan Wagner 2010-02-03 21:22:15 Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings