Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?
Date: 2003-10-22 01:32:55
Message-ID: 3F95DE47.4070608@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>We now have another reason to, which is Chris K-L's point about
>>unqualified names in the various SQL-language built-in functions.
>>I am about to commit that fix (with another catversion bump for
>>good measure...)
>
>
> Oh dear. We really need this function-specific schema path that the SQL
> standard seems to talk about.

What's that? How would it help?

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-10-22 01:34:51 Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems?
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-10-22 01:27:39 Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems?