| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2432) |
| Date: | 2009-12-03 20:46:44 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070912031246g132f3f16re6050b1b3ec41f26@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I agree that search and replace isn't that hard, but I don't find the
>> proposed construction awkward, and we have various uses of it in the
>> docs already. Actually the COPY one is not quite clear whether it
>> means <= 7.3 or < 7.3. I think we're just aiming for consistency here
>> as much as anything.
>
> Well, the problem is that "<= 8.4" is confusing as to whether it
> includes 8.4.n. You and I know that it does because we know we
> don't make feature changes in minor releases, but this is not
> necessarily obvious to everyone. "< 8.5" is much less ambiguous.
Ah. I would not have considered that, but it does make sense.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-12-03 20:50:37 | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2432) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-03 20:33:51 | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2432) |