| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: citext operator precedence fix |
| Date: | 2011-09-22 18:36:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4E7B8040.3000607@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> But I don't think we're required to support that case. If the user
> does a non-standard install, it's their job to deal with the fallout.
Well, I'll write the script anyway, since *I* need it. I'm installing
this on a 9.0 database which will be later upgraded to 9.1.
However, before I write all this, I'd like to settle the question of
acceptability. What do I need to do to make it OK to break backwards
compatibility for this? I feel strongly that I'm correcting it to the
behavior users expect, but that's not statistically backed.
I don't want to spend several hours writing scripts so that it can be
rejected *for that reason*.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-22 19:01:56 | Re: citext operator precedence fix |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-09-22 18:30:54 | Re: citext operator precedence fix |