Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)
Date
Msg-id 200410021941.30084.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)
List pgsql-hackers
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/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gavin Sherry
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1