On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> What risk? And at least we'd be trying to do it cleanly, in a manner >>> that should work for at least 99% of users. AFAICT, Heikki's proposal >>> is "break it for everyone, and damn the torpedoes". > >> I must be confused. I thought Heikki's proposal was "fix it in 9.1, >> because incompatibilities are an expected part of major release >> upgrades, but don't break it in 9.0 and prior, because it's not >> particularly important and we don't want to change behavior or risk >> breaking things in minor releases". > > No, nobody was proposing changing it before 9.1 (or at least I didn't > think anybody was). What's under discussion is how much effort to put > into making a 9.0-to-9.1 upgrade go smoothly for people who have the > function installed.
Oh, I see, never mind me then... feel free to make that go smoothly. :-) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
