On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Brendan Jurd wrote:
On 9 April 2013 09:24, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
As much as I have a keen interest in this feature, it isn't (AFAIK)
being considered for 9.3. Given that it's generated a fair amount of
controversy, could we table it until 9.3 beta?
On 12 June 2013 04:43, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
What's the status on this patch and current approach to ZDA?
Alright, it might be a good idea to have a quick recap.
Last time, on Arrays Of Our Lives ...
So I proposed and posted a patch aimed at deprecating zero-D arrays,
and
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
The only reasonable answer for this (a provably used, non-security,
non-standards violating, non-gross functionality breakage case) is
*zero*. Our historically cavalier attitude towards compatibility
breakage has been
All,
As much as I have a keen interest in this feature, it isn't (AFAIK)
being considered for 9.3. Given that it's generated a fair amount of
controversy, could we table it until 9.3 beta? There's still plenty of
unresolved 9.3 patches in the queue.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 04:24:31PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
All,
As much as I have a keen interest in this feature, it isn't (AFAIK)
being considered for 9.3. Given that it's generated a fair amount of
controversy, could we table it until 9.3 beta? There's still plenty of
unresolved 9.3
On 9 April 2013 09:24, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
As much as I have a keen interest in this feature, it isn't (AFAIK)
being considered for 9.3. Given that it's generated a fair amount of
controversy, could we table it until 9.3 beta? There's still plenty of
unresolved 9.3 patches
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Tom,
No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
Really? I thought that standard_conforming_strings was a great example
of how to
On 26 March 2013 05:26, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
I'm not as sanguine as Tom is about how likely these corner cases will
be met actually. As far as I can tell checking IS NULL on
array_length() was the supported way to check for 0-length arrays
previously
Correct. There was no other
