From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types |
Date: | 2018-06-03 22:53:19 |
Message-ID: | db992b28-dcf0-5fd4-61b6-06103b670eaf@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/03/2018 11:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> The main remaining question I have is what do do with back-branches.
>> Shall we back-patch this or not?
>
> Given the behavioral changes involved, I'd say "no way". That's
> reinforced by the lack of field complaints; if there were lots of
> complaints, maybe we'd be willing to break backwards compatibility,
> but ...
>
Fair enough, I tend to over-estimate importance of bugfixes and
under-estimate breakage due to behavior change. But if we don't want to
back-patch this, I'm fine with that. I was a bit worried about making
future backpatches more painful, but this code received only ~20 commits
over the past files, half of that due tot pgindent, so that seems to be
a non-issue.
But now I'm wondering what does this mean for existing indexes? Doesn't
this effectively mean those are unlikely to give meaningful responses
(in the old or new semantics)?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2018-06-03 23:08:06 | Re: Code of Conduct plan |
Previous Message | Ron | 2018-06-03 21:59:28 | Re: Code of Conduct plan |