| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Postgres 10 manual breaks links with anchors |
| Date: | 2017-10-27 13:29:07 |
| Message-ID: | 29891.1509110947@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 10/26/17 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In view of commit 1ff01b390, aren't we more or less locked into
>> lower-case anchors going forward?
> The details are more complicated. ...
Ah. I'd imagined that we were using the original case for the anchors,
rather than smashing them to upper (or lower) case.
> So the options are simply
> 1) Use the patch and keep indefinitely, keeping anchors compatible back
> to forever and forward indefinitely.
> 2) Don't use the patch, breaking anchors from <=9.6, but keeping them
> compatible going forward.
>
> Considering how small the patch is compared to some other customizations
> we carry, #1 seems reasonable to me.
+1
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Raymond O'Donnell | 2017-10-27 13:50:51 | Re: Function |
| Previous Message | Francisco Olarte | 2017-10-27 12:03:24 | Re: Question regarding logical replication |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-27 13:37:49 | Re: Linking libpq statically to libssl |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-27 13:24:12 | Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |