| From: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
| Cc: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ? |
| Date: | 1999-02-08 01:07:32 |
| Message-ID: | m109fAj-000EBRC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> We have to be pretty careful with these back-rev patches, since they
> typically aren't going to get much testing in the back version's
> CVS tree. So I'm leery of applying anything that hasn't been tested
> for a while in the development branch.
Over careful! They might rely on new features that aren't
there. So it's better to wait for a v6.4.* based bug report
and fix them by hand instead of appying complete patches that
fix it on the fly.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Taral | 1999-02-08 01:19:34 | Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 1999-02-08 00:35:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 |