| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bogus collation version recording in recordMultipleDependencies |
| Date: | 2021-05-05 21:23:16 |
| Message-ID: | 5b32c64e-1b81-5ec4-c150-88fd71720627@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/5/21 5:12 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:58 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> this is an open item for release 14 . The discussion seems to have gone
>> silent for a couple of weeks. Are we in a position to make any
>> decisions? I hear what Andres says, but is anyone acting on it?
> I'm going to revert this and resubmit for 15. That'll give proper
> time to reconsider the question of whether pg_depend is right for
> this, and come up with a non-rushed response to the composite type
> problem etc.
OK, thanks.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2021-05-05 22:18:17 | Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-05-05 21:22:37 | Re: Dubious assertion in RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker |