Christoph Berg <c...@df7cb.de> writes:
> Re: Tom Lane 2014-11-17 <6903.1416241...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> The point is to find out how many people care ...
> Is the point of this to figure out whether to fix this properly, or to
> revert to the old code? The current status isn't something that should
> be released with 9.5.
The warning will not be reverted, if that's what you mean. The problem
is that chkpass_in is broken by design. We need to find some actual
users of the type and see what they think is the least painful solution.
(Or, if we find out there aren't any, maybe we'll just flush the whole
module ...)
I will not promise that it will change by 9.5. It may take some time
to collect information, and 9.4 will not have been in wide use for all
that long before 9.5 freezes.
> Well atm this breaks the building of 9.5 packages. This means we are
> not going to find out if anyone cares by this way :)
You will need to adjust your test. This is by no means the first time
that we've intentionally shipped contrib modules that generate warnings;
there was that messy business with the => operator ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
