Re: Closing some 8.4 open items

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Closing some 8.4 open items
Date: 2009-04-08 22:44:17
Message-ID: 24514.1239230657@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Here is my thinking, and considering that that would basically involve a
> forward-looking design decision right now, I would support dropping the
> cardinality() function from 8.4 (if people agree that this is in fact the
> design decision to make).

At this point I'd support that too. It doesn't seem that getting
cardinality() into 8.4 is important enough to risk making a decision
that we'd regret later. And I think it's not hard to make the case
that we might regret either of the other choices later, depending on
where we go with arrays.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-04-08 23:13:53 Re: default parameters for built-in functions
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-04-08 22:37:25 Re: Closing some 8.4 open items