From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:50:08 -0500
Message-ID: <20041002005008.GA24766@wolff.to> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15677.1096671183@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <web-1583353@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.10.10409271910480.22691-100000@solarwind>
<20041001182830.GA20624@wolff.to>
<13492.1096656574@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<15677.1096671183@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 18:53:03 -0400,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> What I'm inclined to do with these is change pg_proc.h but not force an
> initdb. Does anyone want to argue for an initdb to force it to be fixed
> in 8.0? We've lived with the wrong labelings for some time now without
> noticing, so it doesn't seem like a serious enough bug to force a
> post-beta initdb ... to me anyway.
As long as it is mentioned in the release notes, it doesn't seem worth
forcing an initdb.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: bruno@wolff.to, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)
In-Reply-To: <20041002005008.GA24766@wolff.to>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox