> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom, can you identify any of the array items as fixed? Should we
> > assume they are all fixed unless someone reports them broken?
>
> No, that would be unduly optimistic :-(. I have fixed one or two
> array-related bugs, but I haven't made a serious push on it; several
> of the test cases that are in my to-do list still fail.
>
> > * aggregates on array indexes crash backend
>
> I believe I have fixed that one, at least.
OK.
> > * select t[1] from foo fails, select count(foo.t[1]) from foo crashes
>
> This item is a duplicate: the first part refers to the same thing as
> > * array index references without table name cause problems
> (which is as yet unfixed) and the second refers to the aggregate problem.
OK.
> > * change the library/backend interface to use network byte order
>
> Is there something I'm missing? This has been true for a long while...
People have mentioned we should make the change, but it will require a
new protocol, so it hasn't moved from the list.
> > * -Allow DISTINCT on view
>
> I think this is not done...
Yes, I think he just added an error message to warn people.
Updated.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
