| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane), pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: revised hstore patch |
| Date: | 2009-07-23 06:41:22 |
| Message-ID: | FA73FB99-D763-4A89-AEFE-30038351CF8C@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> To me (A) is looking like the obvious choice (the people smart enough
> to be using hstore-new from CVS already can handle the minor pain of
> updating the on-disk format).
>
> Unless I hear any objections I will proceed accordingly...
Yes, that seems like the smarter path to me, too, as long as the new
format does not continue the bug, of course.
But should the "bug" be fixed in maintenance branches? I'm thinking,
since its likelihood is so rare, probably not.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-07-23 06:44:13 | Re: extension facility (was: revised hstore patch) |
| Previous Message | Tsutomu Yamada | 2009-07-23 06:04:52 | Re: [PATCH] "could not reattach to shared memory" on Windows |