| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarim(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Byron Nikolaidis <byron(dot)nikolaidis(at)home(dot)com>, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] COMMENT ON patch |
| Date: | 1999-10-25 05:36:33 |
| Message-ID: | 14803.940829793@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mike Mascari <mascarim(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> Does this field exist for all previous postgres releases (specifically,
>> 6.2,6.3, and 6.4) ??
> And of course, it appears also in 6.4.x, so I assume that it was added
> between the 6.2 and 6.3 releases. Is that going to be a problem?
For Peter's purposes, it's unnecessary to worry about anything older
than 6.4, since he's depending on an up-to-date libpq and current libpq
won't talk to anything older than 6.4.
Byron might still care about 6.2 ... I dunno whether ODBC currently
really works with 6.2 or not, or whether it needs to keep doing so.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 1999-10-25 08:49:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] COMMENT ON patch |
| Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 1999-10-25 05:18:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] COMMENT ON patch |