Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?
Date: 2003-10-21 16:29:41
Message-ID: 4144.1066753781@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:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> We now have another reason to, which is Chris K-L's point about
>> unqualified names in the various SQL-language built-in functions.
>> I am about to commit that fix (with another catversion bump for
>> good measure...)

> Oh dear. We really need this function-specific schema path that the SQL
> standard seems to talk about.

Possibly. It's not happening for 7.4 though ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-10-21 18:25:56 Re: [HACKERS] Mapping Oracle types to PostgreSQL types
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-10-21 16:27:45 Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems?