| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: hstore isexists |
| Date: | 2006-10-11 20:57:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20061011205719.GS13487@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 04:17:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 10:04:10AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >>Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> >>
> >>>It's possible to create function 'exists' and mention only it in docs.
> >>>
> >>Good point. Will you do that, or do you want me to?
> >>
> >
> >ISTM it would be better to mention the deprecated version and
> >explicitly state that it's deprecated.
> >
> >
>
> If we had had this in contrib previously with the deprecated call I
> would agree. But it seems like bad practice and unnecessary clutter to
> start off by deprecating something.
Sorry, I don't know the history of hstore... but if it's brand new, why
are we worried about backwards compatibility?
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-11 21:00:50 | Re: hstore isexists |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2006-10-11 20:27:41 | On status data and summaries |