On 15.02.2011 18:03, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
What risk? And at least we'd be trying to do it cleanly, in a manner
that should work for at least 99% of users. AFAICT, Heikki's proposal
is "break it for everyone, and damn the torpedoes".
I must be confused. I thought Heikki's proposal was "fix it in 9.1,
because incompatibilities are an expected part of major release
upgrades, but don't break it in 9.0 and prior, because it's not
particularly important and we don't want to change behavior or risk
breaking things in minor releases".
Right, that's what I meant.
No, nobody was proposing changing it before 9.1 (or at least I didn't
think anybody was). What's under discussion is how much effort to put
into making a 9.0-to-9.1 upgrade go smoothly for people who have the
function installed.
Oh, never mind then.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
