Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems
Date: 2018-05-22 14:22:20
Message-ID: CAKFQuwagHebj==+nOJ32z5ntdQ3p1V9OsJ90GqrvvYysFhvL7A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> If we start routinely
> back-patching things that fall into that category, we will certainly
> manage to destabilize older releases on a regular basis.
>

Just because something is bad if done in excess doesn't mean specific
moderate partaking is bad too.

We actually did backpatch the NaN stuff and reverted that because, for me,
it was a silent change of functioning behavior.‚Äč I find the decision to
back-patch this syntax oversight considerably more obvious than that one
was.

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christoph Berg 2018-05-22 14:31:00 Re: ppc64le support in 9.3 branch?
Previous Message Paolo Crosato 2018-05-22 14:18:20 Error on vacuum: xmin before relfrozenxid