From: | Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr(dot)rosas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: wrong search_path being used |
Date: | 2013-01-10 01:09:18 |
Message-ID: | 50EE14BE.7010207@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Em 09-01-2013 20:09, Kevin Grittner escreveu:
> Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> There have been discussions about changing that
>> if I understand it correctly, you do consider it a bug but you
>> don't want to backport a fix because it might break existent
>> behavior in some dbs, right?
> No, there has been discussion about whether different behavior
> would be better in future major releases, but no consensus has been
> reached.
>
>>> but we wouldn't treat it as a back-patchable bug fix, because
>>> it would almost certainly break things for somebody.
>> But it is not clear to me if you're willing to fix it for 9.2.3
>> for instance?
> Back-patching means changing things in a minor release, where
> things only change after the second dot. We don't make changes in
> user-visible behavior like this in minor releases; so no, we would
> not make a change like this in 9.2.3 or any other 9.2 version.
>
Ok, thanks for the explanation, Kevin.
I'm curious though. Why wouldn't this behavior be considered a bug? Is
there any link to previous discussions about this subject that I could read?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | cwillemsen | 2013-01-10 11:25:38 | BUG #7802: Cannot drop table because of dependant sequence, but there is link to sequence |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-01-09 22:09:03 | Re: wrong search_path being used |