On 2014-05-11 06:02:23 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> [ shrug... ] "proactive" would have been doing this a month ago. > >> If we're going to ship a release, we have to stop taking new features > >> at some point, and we are really past that point for 9.4.
We *couldn't* do it a month ago since we didn't know about it a month ago. My delorean is getting a bit old. > > I agree with you that is too late to add *new features*. > > > > But I agree with Andres when he said this is a regression introcuced in the > > pg_lsn patch. > > > > So we'll release a version that break a simple query like that: > > > > fabrizio=# SELECT DISTINCT (g.i||'/0')::pg_lsn f FROM generate_series(1, > > 100) g(i), generate_series(1, 5); > > ERROR: could not identify an equality operator for type pg_lsn > > LINE 1: SELECT DISTINCT (g.i||'/0')::pg_lsn f FROM generate_series(1... > > ^ > > I agree that this is not new feature but just the fix of oversight of > the pg_lsn patch. > Without such opclass, we cannot execute even such simple query. I don't even understand why it's questionable whether this should be fixed. It's an almost trivial patch for an oversight in a newly introduced feature. We gain absolutely nothing by patching this in the next cycle, except that things need to be tested twice. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
