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


From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, "Robert B(dot) Easter" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Date: 2001-01-12 04:48:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
I concur. about holding for 7.2.  Though this is of limited danger, it
is not something that is really in hight demand.

> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> > I *assume* that this will have trouble making it in to 7.1, and since
> > keywords are likely added this may have trouble with 7.1.x (not sure
> > about that; perhaps the lex-generated token values never make it into
> > the database tables, but they *do* propagate into structures used deeper
> > in the backend).
> Since he didn't add a new parsetree node type, there wouldn't be any
> database compatibility issue AFAIK.  I'm pretty certain that keyword
> token values never get into stored rules.
> However, there is our self-imposed "no new features during beta" rule.
> This looks like a relatively harmless patch, but do we want to break
> that rule for something that people are not beating down our doors for?
> I'd vote for holding it for 7.2, I think.
> 			regards, tom lane

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Robert B. EasterDate: 2001-01-12 05:41:26
Subject: Re: sql.sgml take 3
Previous:From: Lincoln YeohDate: 2001-01-12 03:08:40
Subject: Re: Lock on arbitrary string feature

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group