On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't really mind hacks^H^H^Hpartial solutions that are clean subsets
> of the functionality we want to have eventually. I do object to hacks
> that will create a backwards-compatibility problem when we want to do it
If the backwards compatability problem is just related to stuff from the
users (i.e., this keyword works in this release, but will not work in
future releases), I don't see the problem. Just document it and move on.
The user can either use it and deal with the compatbility pain later,
or not use it and be just where he would be if the hack were never
implmemented in the first place.
Otherwise you only have to leave the feature in until the next major
release, anyway, right? Because for major releases it's expected that
you will have to dump and restore you database anyway, hmm?
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fouad Fezzi||Date: 2002-06-27 10:57:54|
|Subject: encoding problem|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2002-06-27 10:31:10|
|Subject: BETWEEN SYMMETRIC|