On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Philip Warner wrote:
> >> Is this OK? Or inappropriate for beta?
> > From Tatsuo's example, it looks critical enough that it should be fixed
> > before release, and since its a 'support program' issue, not a 'core
> > server' issue, ramifications of fixing it aren't as big as if it was a
> > 'core server' issue ... go for it
> I concur. This is not a new feature, but a bug fix, and therefore it's
> appropriate to do it during beta. We don't require beta-period bug
> fixes to be the smallest possible change that cures the problem. They
> should be good fixes if practical.
> One issue however is how confident are we of the alter table add
> constraint code? I'm not sure it's been exercised enough to justify
> making pg_dump rely on it ... is anyone willing to spend some time
> testing that statement?
Since its obvious that pg_dump isn't working now, we wouldn't be breaking
it any further if the constraint code has a problem with it ... and we
should be able to find out relatively quickly *if* the contraint code has
a problem if its used for something like this ...
Essentially, worst case scenario, we are going from 'broken->broken' ...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-01-07 18:29:31|
|Subject: Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-01-07 18:18:02|
|Subject: Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? |