Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 behavior change with set returning (funct).*

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Regina Obe <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 behavior change with set returning (funct).*
Date: 2016-03-23 21:58:46
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYz8dwycyycveNUiH1RVRaMVdDPKdpNF_n1_KAB2=J9Wg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

>
> ​​
> In the meantime I suppose there's a case to be made for preserving
> bug compatibility as much as possible.
>
> So anyway the question is whether to commit the attached or not.

​+1 for commit - I'll trust Tom on the quality of the patch :)

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-03-23 22:05:27 Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 behavior change with set returning (funct).*
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-03-23 21:51:26 Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5)