| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, 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 15:01:42 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.3.95.980416110112.10565G-100000@hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > 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...
>
> How about an elog(NOTICE,"...") so it runs, but they see the NOTICE
> every time.
That works too...but how does something like that work from within
a C program? Or Perl?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-04-16 15:18:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Status of 6.3.2 snapshot on alpha/Digital Unix |
| Previous Message | Pedro J. Lobo | 1998-04-16 14:58:49 | Status of 6.3.2 snapshot on alpha/Digital Unix |