Re: Is PG a moving target?

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Ken Johanson <pg-user(at)kensystem(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Is PG a moving target?
Date: 2008-02-12 02:28:25
Message-ID: 200802112128.25812.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Monday 11 February 2008 14:49, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 09:09 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Ken Johanson wrote:
> > > Is there anything now, or in the works, for compatibility emulation?
> > > For example to setup my session to act like 8.2 and allow less-strict
> > > typing.
> >
> > The best way to ensure 8.2 compatibility is to use 8.2. But as casts are
> > user definable, you can add back any casts you want. Just don't add
> > dozens of implicit casts and then come back here wondering why your
> > application is behaving strangely. :)
>
> As I understand it, it's tricky (or impossible) to get the 8.2 behavior
> back just by adding/modifying casts.
>
> If not, couldn't we just publish those casts so people can be backwards
> compatible if they want?
>

that was the idea behind castcompat, which didn't get far out of the gate
before several examples cropped up showing how backwards-compatible casting
would break new 8.3 system expectations.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message INDIANNIC-HOSTING 2008-02-12 03:19:49 WINDOWS INSTALLATION TIPS
Previous Message Gerald Timothy Quimpo 2008-02-12 02:03:08 Re: Continual uptime while loading data ... COPY vs INSERTS within a transaction.