Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The argument for doing this now hinges solely on a marketing-driven
>> choice of version name, and not on any actual evidence that applications
>> are ready for it. We really need to do this at the start of a devel
>> and alpha test cycle, not at the end.
> Application writers probably didn't bother all that much with alphas
> though. The bulk of them is going to start with the betas, which have
> not been delivered yet, so it seems a good time to try.
I still think that changing it now is going to open a can of worms that
we shouldn't be opening at this stage. We have got more than enough to
worry about for 9.0 already. I think it is absolute folly to believe
that this is only going to be a matter of "flip the default and nothing
else is going to pop up".
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2010-02-03 18:49:01|
|Subject: Re: Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl UPDATED [PATCH]|
|Previous:||From: Greg Sabino Mullane||Date: 2010-02-03 18:46:33|
|Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings|