Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?
Date: 2003-10-21 16:23:03
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0310211822330.29086-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> We now have another reason to, which is Chris K-L's point about
> unqualified names in the various SQL-language built-in functions.
> I am about to commit that fix (with another catversion bump for
> good measure...)

Oh dear. We really need this function-specific schema path that the SQL
standard seems to talk about.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-10-21 16:27:45 Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-10-21 16:13:50 Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?