Re: error in the example given for numeric data types

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Priyank Rajvansh <rajvansh(dot)priyank(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: error in the example given for numeric data types
Date: 2023-07-15 18:09:23
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYPCXJ=ybtxn6BvmXYgf9VxNbxJsx7Pq0KDdo5soDGnqQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 10:50 AM Priyank Rajvansh <
rajvansh(dot)priyank(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> First of all thanks for your reply.This mean that this was a bug in the
> previous versions right?
>

No, it means that a prior version limitation has been lifted, so a
definition that was previously undefined is now defined. It is not a bug
to choose to not implement something.

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chandy G 2023-07-15 20:42:56 Re: Toasted column values during replication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-07-15 17:56:13 Re: pg_restore mostly idle on restoring a large number of tables