Tom Lane wrote: > "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > John Smith wrote: > >> [3] I am not certain how widespread they might be, but I think there > >> may be some backward compatibility concerns with the patch you are > >> proposing. > > > Well, the current behavior is certainly broken, so an application > > relying on it is in trouble anyway :-(. Even if we came up with a patch > > for 8.4 to relax the limitation, I doubt it would be safe enough to > > backport to stable branches. > > As Heikki pointed out later, PG 8.1 correctly enforces the restriction > against preparing a transaction that has dropped a temp table. It's > only 8.2.x and 8.3.0 that (appear to) allow this. So I'm not persuaded > by backwards-compatibility arguments. > > I've applied Heikki's new patch, and I think that's as much as we can do > for 8.2 and 8.3. Any improvement in the functionality would be new > development (and not trivial development, either) for 8.4 or later.
Is there a TODO here? -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr?domain=postgresql.org&extra=pgsql-hackers
