From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Closing some 8.4 open items |
Date: | 2009-04-09 12:17:43 |
Message-ID: | 49DDE767.4070903@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>
>> Here is my thinking, and considering that that would basically involve a
>> forward-looking design decision right now, I would support dropping the
>> cardinality() function from 8.4 (if people agree that this is in fact the
>> design decision to make).
>>
>
> At this point I'd support that too. It doesn't seem that getting
> cardinality() into 8.4 is important enough to risk making a decision
> that we'd regret later. And I think it's not hard to make the case
> that we might regret either of the other choices later, depending on
> where we go with arrays.
>
>
>
+1
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-04-09 12:29:37 | Re: Translation conventions |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-04-09 10:21:32 | Re: 8.4 open items list |