Re: Closing some 8.4 open items

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Closing some 8.4 open items
Date: 2009-04-09 12:17:43
Message-ID: 49DDE767.4070903@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>

+1

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-04-09 12:29:37 Re: Translation conventions
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2009-04-09 10:21:32 Re: 8.4 open items list