| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) |
| Date: | 2004-10-02 17:41:29 |
| Message-ID: | 200410021941.30084.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-novice pgsql-sql |
Tom Lane wrote:
> What I'm inclined to do with these is change pg_proc.h but not force
> an initdb. Does anyone want to argue for an initdb to force it to be
> fixed in 8.0? We've lived with the wrong labelings for some time now
> without noticing, so it doesn't seem like a serious enough bug to
> force a post-beta initdb ... to me anyway.
I'd prefer if all users of 8.0 were guaranteed to have the same catalog.
I don't want to ask users, "what version, and when did you last
initdb". We're still in beta; no one purchased any stability
guarantees.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-02 17:57:24 | Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2004-10-02 14:20:36 | Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-02 18:22:50 | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) |
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-10-02 08:43:01 | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-02 18:22:50 | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) |
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-10-02 08:43:01 | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd |