From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 19:41:29 +0200
Message-ID: <200410021941.30084.peter_e@gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15677.1096671183@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <web-1583353@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
<13492.1096656574@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<15677.1096671183@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane 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.
I'd prefer if all users of 8.0 were guaranteed to have the same catalog.
I don't want to ask users, "what version, and when did you last
initdb". We're still in beta; no one purchased any stability
guarantees.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
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: peter_e@gmx.net, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, bruno@wolff.to, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)
In-Reply-To: <200410021941.30084.peter_e@gmx.net>
* 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