From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) |
Date: | 2010-08-04 19:42:42 |
Message-ID: | 24961.1280950962@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> 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. The only argument I can see against it is not
wanting to force beta testers through an initdb. But it seems like that
might actually be a positive thing not a negative one, in this cycle,
because we're trying to get test coverage on pg_upgrade.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-08-04 19:44:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2010-08-04 19:32:58 | Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-08-04 19:44:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-04 19:36:38 | Re: patch for contrib/isn |