Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Four years later, people were saying:
>
> >> OK, this new patch prints a warning on any major version
> >> mismatch, newer or older.
> >
> > I would suggest showing both th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Four years later, people were saying:
>> OK, this new patch prints a warning on any major version
>> mismatch, newer or older.
>
> I would suggest showing both the client and server versions that
> mismatched. If you're in a scenario with several ve
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > Here is a patch that will print out (in interactive mode only) a warning
> > > message if a newer client connects to an older major numbered server.
> >
> > Why only older? It's even less likely to work if the server is newer
> > > Here is a patch that will print out (in interactive mode only) a
> > > warning message if a newer client connects to an older
> major numbered server.
> >
> > Why only older? It's even less likely to work if the
> server is newer.
> >
> > (I don't agree with the premise to begin with...
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Here is a patch that will print out (in interactive mode only) a warning
> > message if a newer client connects to an older major numbered server.
>
> Why only older? It's even less likely to work if the server is newer.
>
> (I don't agree with the pr
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Here is a patch that will print out (in interactive mode only) a warning
message if a newer client connects to an older major numbered server.
Why only older? It's even less likely to work if the server is newer.
(I don't agree wit
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Here is a patch that will print out (in interactive mode only) a warning
> message if a newer client connects to an older major numbered server.
Why only older? It's even less likely to work if the server is newer.
(I don't agree with the premise to begin with...)
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Could this be back patched to the older versions as well?
Sure.
---
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Tom,
> >>
> >>> They've been broken on a fairly
Could this be back patched to the older versions as well?
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
They've been broken on a fairly regular basis in past releases.
Certainly 7.3 broke every single one because of the addition of
schema syntax ...
Yeah, and we warned
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > They've been broken on a fairly regular basis in past releases.
> > Certainly 7.3 broke every single one because of the addition of
> > schema syntax ...
>
> Yeah, and we warned people about it, as I recall. Also, we had about 25x
> less users then. I think we
10 matches
Mail list logo
