Hello, Robert. You wrote:
RH> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Pavel Golub <pa...@microolap.com> wrote: >> RH> Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which >> RH> we still support for backwards compatibility with versions < 7.3. We >> RH> can fix the immediate problem with something like the attached. >> >> This patch is ugly. Sorry, Robert, but it's true. RH> No hard feelings here. If you, as the reporter of the problem, don't RH> feel that it's serious enough to warrant back-patching a fix, then I'm RH> not going to insist. However, if we don't do what I've proposed here, RH> then I think 8.4 and 9.0 and probably 9.1 are going to need to stay as RH> they are, because... >> RH> (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy >> RH> syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? (Given that the >> RH> workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say "no", but could be >> RH> persuaded otherwise.) >> >> +1 for this. Pre-7.3 syntax is dead in fact for many years. RH> ...this is not something we're going to back-patch. Patches needed for 9.0 and 9.1 only, because this is new format comparing with 8.x -- With best wishes, Pavel mailto:pa...@gf.microolap.com -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
