| From: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Polymorphic types vs. domains |
| Date: | 2008-12-08 09:20:53 |
| Message-ID: | BBEC40FD-BCC9-4C5F-BBDC-E72E045E7390@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
How would it break any apps? They would hve to be depending on passing
arrays as anynonarray? That seems unlikely.
On the other hand I don't see much reason to backpatch. It's not like
anyone is going to run into this problem unexpectedly on a running
system. It just doesn't seem like a back patchable bug fix.
--
Greg
On 8 Dec 2008, at 08:00, "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2008, at 2:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Comments?
>
> +1
>
>> If this is agreed to be a bug, should we consider
>> back-patching it? (I'd vote not, I think, because the behavioral
>> change could conceivably break some apps that work now.)
>
> +1
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-12-08 10:01:37 | Synchronous replication: reading recovery.conf |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-12-08 09:06:36 | Re: Multiplexing SUGUSR1 |