| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |
| Date: | 2009-10-19 18:14:03 |
| Message-ID: | 4ADCAC6B.7040200@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> (a) Nobody but me is afraid of the consequences of treating this as
> a GUC. (I still think you're all wrong, but so be it.)
>
I can't say I'm happy about it. For one thing, the granularity seems all
wrong. I'd rather be able to keep backwards compatibility on a function
by function basis. Or would the value of the GUC at the time the
function was created stick?
> What are the probabilities that the OpenACSes of the world will just
> set the value to "backward compatible" instead of touching their code?
>
Quite high, I should say.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Chernow | 2009-10-19 18:14:14 | Re: postgres 8.3.8 and Solaris 10_x86 64 bit problems? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-19 18:14:02 | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |