| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, ssimkovi(at)rainbow(dot)studorg(dot)tuwien(dot)ac(dot)at |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release |
| Date: | 1998-04-16 13:53:53 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.3.95.980416095334.10565F-100000@hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> > > My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The
> > > bugs are serious and cause crashes.
> > > Do we disable it?
> > Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
> > v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)
>
> Hmm. What is the downside to leaving it in with caveats or "stay away"
> warnings in the release notes? Since it didn't exist as a feature
> before, the only downside I see is somewhat increased traffic on the
> questions list...
I liked the one suggestion about having it as a compile time
option until its fixed...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-04-16 13:57:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] ecpg patch |
| Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-04-16 13:47:40 | Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release |