| From: | Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER SYSTEM RESET? |
| Date: | 2014-09-02 15:08:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20140902150826.GB10561@msg.df7cb.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Re: Vik Fearing 2014-09-02 <5405D2D9(dot)9050801(at)dalibo(dot)com>
> > Uhm, are we agreed on the decision on not to backpatch this? I would
> > think this should have been part of the initial ALTER SYSTEM SET patch
> > and thus should be backpatched to 9.4.
>
> I think it belongs in 9.4 as well, especially if we're having another beta.
My original complaint was about 9.4, so I'd like to see it there, yes.
IMHO it doesn't make sense to ship a crippled version first, let users
get used to the fact that "(RE)SET" and "ALTER SYSTEM (RE)SET" behave
differently, and then ship the full feature in 9.5 later.
Also, this should be something that is trivially to test, so there's
little chance of slipping bugs into 9.4 that would go unnoticed.
Christoph
--
cb(at)df7cb(dot)de | http://www.df7cb.de/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-09-02 15:08:29 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-09-02 15:04:35 | Re: postgresql latency & bgwriter not doing its job |