[HACKERS] Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alex Hunsaker writes: >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:04, Tom Lane wrote: >>> If we were a bit earlier in the 9.0 cycle I would suggest that this >>> confusion is a sufficient reason to drop the one-argument form of >>> string_agg. It's too late now though. > >> FWIW I think we can still change it. Isn't this type of issue part >> of what beta is for? If we were in RC that would be a different story >> :) > > Well, it'd take an initdb to get rid of it. In the past we've avoided > forcing initdb post-beta1 unless it was Really Necessary. OTOH, we seem > to be in the mode of encouraging beta testers to test pg_upgrade, so > maybe that concern isn't worth much at the moment. I vote fix it. This is going to be a high travel function, and should be right. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 09:02:43PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: > On 4 August 2010 20:58, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > >> Great, I was afraid people would want another beta if we forced > >> an initdb. So a hearty +1 for fixing it and not doing another > >> beta (pending other bugs obviously). > > > > And, btw, there has been a lot of testing of pg_upgrade due to the > > initdbs and otherwise. I think 9.0 is going to have a pretty > > darned solid pg_upgrade because of it. > > > > Leave my name off the commit comment then ;) People who have been > waiting for this will burn me as a heretical witch... er.. man > witch... warlock? Witch. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)
On 4 August 2010 20:58, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Great, I was afraid people would want another beta if we forced an >> initdb. So a hearty +1 for fixing it and not doing another beta >> (pending other bugs obviously). > > And, btw, there has been a lot of testing of pg_upgrade due to the > initdbs and otherwise. I think 9.0 is going to have a pretty darned > solid pg_upgrade because of it. > Leave my name off the commit comment then ;) People who have been waiting for this will burn me as a heretical witch... er.. man witch... warlock? -- Thom Brown Registered Linux user: #516935 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)
> Great, I was afraid people would want another beta if we forced an > initdb. So a hearty +1 for fixing it and not doing another beta > (pending other bugs obviously). And, btw, there has been a lot of testing of pg_upgrade due to the initdbs and otherwise. I think 9.0 is going to have a pretty darned solid pg_upgrade because of it. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 13:42, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote: >>> I think forcing an initdb might be more trouble than this wart is worth. > >> +1. I would not make this change unless we have to force an initdb >> anyway. And I really hope we don't, because I'm sort of hoping the >> next 9.0 release will be rc1. > > Hm? I don't think that an initdb here would have any impact on whether > we can call the next drop RC1 or not. We're talking about removing a > single built-in entry in pg_proc --- it's one of the safest changes we > could possibly make. Great, I was afraid people would want another beta if we forced an initdb. So a hearty +1 for fixing it and not doing another beta (pending other bugs obviously). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)
On 4 August 2010 20:25, Alex Hunsaker wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 13:11, Tom Lane wrote: >> Alex Hunsaker writes: >>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:04, Tom Lane wrote: If we were a bit earlier in the 9.0 cycle I would suggest that this confusion is a sufficient reason to drop the one-argument form of string_agg. It's too late now though. >> >>> FWIW I think we can still change it. Isn't this type of issue part >>> of what beta is for? If we were in RC that would be a different story >>> :) >> >> Well, it'd take an initdb to get rid of it. > > I think forcing an initdb might be more trouble than this wart is worth. > >> In the past we've avoided >> forcing initdb post-beta1 unless it was Really Necessary. OTOH, we seem >> to be in the mode of encouraging beta testers to test pg_upgrade, so >> maybe that concern isn't worth much at the moment. > > I have one or two 9.0-beta databases, a forced initdb would defiantly > motivate me to try pg_upgrade :). To me, the question is are we > planning on releasing a new beta anyway? Maybe its worth it then. If > we were planning on going RC after this last beta (and I dont think we > were?), I agree with Kevin, its not something worth pushing the > release 9.0 for. By that I mean I assume if we force an initdb that > we would want to do another beta regardless. > > Either way, I don't have strong feelings on this other than if we dont > fix it now when will we? Maybe we will get "lucky" and someone will > find an issue that we have to initdb for anyways :). > I think it should be left exactly how it is. It only needed clarification in the documentation to explain its usage for the scenario in question, and probably a couple entries in the regression tests as they're lacking at the moment. I wish I had held back on mentioning it as I remembered later that this has already been discussed to a degree, and I'd probably have kept my mouth shut upon recalling it. -- Thom Brown Registered Linux user: #516935 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote: > I think forcing an initdb might be more trouble than this wart is worth. +1. I would not make this change unless we have to force an initdb anyway. And I really hope we don't, because I'm sort of hoping the next 9.0 release will be rc1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 13:11, Tom Lane wrote: > Alex Hunsaker writes: >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:04, Tom Lane wrote: >>> If we were a bit earlier in the 9.0 cycle I would suggest that this >>> confusion is a sufficient reason to drop the one-argument form of >>> string_agg. It's too late now though. > >> FWIW I think we can still change it. Isn't this type of issue part >> of what beta is for? If we were in RC that would be a different story >> :) > > Well, it'd take an initdb to get rid of it. I think forcing an initdb might be more trouble than this wart is worth. > In the past we've avoided > forcing initdb post-beta1 unless it was Really Necessary. OTOH, we seem > to be in the mode of encouraging beta testers to test pg_upgrade, so > maybe that concern isn't worth much at the moment. I have one or two 9.0-beta databases, a forced initdb would defiantly motivate me to try pg_upgrade :). To me, the question is are we planning on releasing a new beta anyway? Maybe its worth it then. If we were planning on going RC after this last beta (and I dont think we were?), I agree with Kevin, its not something worth pushing the release 9.0 for. By that I mean I assume if we force an initdb that we would want to do another beta regardless. Either way, I don't have strong feelings on this other than if we dont fix it now when will we? Maybe we will get "lucky" and someone will find an issue that we have to initdb for anyways :). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
