On 8/24/07, Manuel Sugawara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Manuel Sugawara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> In 8.0 the pgcrypto functions were non-strict and checked for NULLs.
> >>> In 8.1 they were made STRICT.
> >>> In 8.2 the NULL check were removed from code.
> >
> >> Not an smart move IMHO, I didn't create the function, it was created
> >> as part of my upgrade process. May I suggest to put back the check?.
> >
> > That's the standard way of doing things in C functions (ie, rely on
> > STRICT markings) and I see nothing wrong with it.
> >
> > If you were using an upgrade process that failed to incorporate
> > version-to-version changes in the definitions of contrib functions,
> > this is hardly going to be the only problem you encounter.
> I was under the impression that the standar procedure for upgrading
> was to read the release notes searching for this kind of gotchas. I've
> reviewed (again) the release notes for 8.1 and 8.2 and didn't find
> anything related but maybe I'm not searching hard enough.
> If something is not going a work (or is going a work in a different
> way) in some version after loading a shot form a previous one I think
> it should be documented or some kind of backwards compatibility
> mechanism should be provided.

That's a valid complaint and I take the blame.

The problem was that such "evolution" was not actually planned.
So when I noticed the 8.2 commit, I did not think of the implications
hard enough to realize the need for release note for it.

Tom, how about putting a note about that into next 8.2 minor
release notes?  (8.3 too?)  Something like "You need to refresh
pgcrypto functions, because since rel 8.2 the code depends
on functions being tagged STRICT."


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to