Robert Haas writes:
I'm not really for doing it that way, but I'm willing to apply the fix
if there's consensus for your position. Anybody else have an opinion?
> +1 from me, too. I don't see that there's enough advantage in
> avoiding a catversion bump to justify leaving this footgun
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> > I'm not really for doing it that way, but I'm willing to apply the fix
>> > if there's consensus for your position. Anybody else have an opinion?
>>
>> I tend to agree with Noah on this one.
>
> +1
+1 from me, too. I don't see that th
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Noah Misch writes:
> > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:20:41AM +, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Annotate the fact that somebody added location fields to
> PartitionBoundSpec
> > >> and PartitionRangeDatu
On 2017/05/30 11:41, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Noah Misch writes:
>>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:20:41AM +, Tom Lane wrote:
Annotate the fact that somebody added location fields to PartitionBoundSpec
and PartitionRangeDatum but forgot to handle
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:20:41AM +, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Annotate the fact that somebody added location fields to PartitionBoundSpec
> >> and PartitionRangeDatum but forgot to handle them in
> >> outfuncs.c/readfuncs.c. This is
Noah Misch writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:20:41AM +, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Annotate the fact that somebody added location fields to PartitionBoundSpec
>> and PartitionRangeDatum but forgot to handle them in
>> outfuncs.c/readfuncs.c. This is fairly harmless for production purposes
>> (sinc