| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the |
| Date: | 2001-10-23 20:41:54 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0110232141180.642-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian writes:
> It was on the TODO list, and I did exactly what was listed there. What
> we have now is a discussion that the TODO item was wrong.
I don't consider the items on the TODO list to be past the "adequately
discussed" stage.
To the topic at hand: I find reversing the argument order is going to
silently break a lot of applications. Removing the syntax altogether
could be a reasonable choice, but since it doesn't hurt anyone right now
I'd prefer an advance notice for one release.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-10-23 20:42:11 | Re: [GENERAL] To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit |
| Previous Message | Keary Suska | 2001-10-23 20:19:18 | Re: openssl & postgresql |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-10-23 20:42:11 | Re: [GENERAL] To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit |
| Previous Message | Roland Roberts | 2001-10-23 20:22:13 | Re: Is there no "DESCRIBE <TABLE>;" on PGSQL? help!!! |