On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 11:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm OK with adding a note either to the 9.0 docs only (which means it
might be missed by a 9.0 user who only looks at the current docs) or
with adding a note to all
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 14:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Having thought about this a bit further, I'm coming around to the view
that if it isn't worth adding this in master, it's not worth adding at
all. I just don't think it's going to get any visibility as a
back-branch only doc patch.
Fine
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 00:36 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Is this really a good idea? I think the note should still be there in
9.1 and beyond (with the version applicability note of course)
I see your point, but it also
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 11:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm OK with adding a note either to the 9.0 docs only (which means it
might be missed by a 9.0 user who only looks at the current docs) or
with adding a note to all versions mentioning the difference in
behavior with 9.0, but I'm not really
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 00:36 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Is this really a good idea? I think the note should still be there in
9.1 and beyond (with the version applicability note of course)
I see your point, but it also seems strange to keep such a note
permanently. And it also seems minor
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 22:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm wondering if we might want to call this out with a note or
similar... especially if we're only going to put it into the 9.0
docs.
Sure, sounds good.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Excerpts from Jeff Davis's message of vie jul 08 00:58:20 -0400 2011:
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 12:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I think it's probably too late to go fiddling with the behavior of 9.0
at this point. If we change the text of error messages, there is a
chance that it might break
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 12:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I think it's probably too late to go fiddling with the behavior of 9.0
at this point. If we change the text of error messages, there is a
chance that it might break
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
In the 9.0 version of exclusion constraints, we added an extra check to
ensure that, when searching for a conflict, a tuple at least found
itself as a conflict. This extra check is not present in 9.1+.
It was designed to
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 12:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I think it's probably too late to go fiddling with the behavior of 9.0
at this point. If we change the text of error messages, there is a
chance that it might break applications; it would also require those
messages to be re-translated,
In the 9.0 version of exclusion constraints, we added an extra check to
ensure that, when searching for a conflict, a tuple at least found
itself as a conflict. This extra check is not present in 9.1+.
It was designed to help diagnose certain types of problems, and is fine
for most use cases. A
Hi:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
In the 9.0 version of exclusion constraints, we added an extra check to
ensure that, when searching for a conflict, a tuple at least found
itself as a conflict. This extra check is not present in 9.1+.
It was designed
12 matches
Mail list logo
