Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)
Date
Msg-id 24961.1280950962@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)  (Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com>)
Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think forcing an initdb might be more trouble than this wart is worth.

> +1.  I would not make this change unless we have to force an initdb
> anyway.  And I really hope we don't, because I'm sort of hoping the
> next 9.0 release will be rc1.

Hm?  I don't think that an initdb here would have any impact on whether
we can call the next drop RC1 or not.  We're talking about removing a
single built-in entry in pg_proc --- it's one of the safest changes we
could possibly make.  The only argument I can see against it is not
wanting to force beta testers through an initdb.  But it seems like that
might actually be a positive thing not a negative one, in this cycle,
because we're trying to get test coverage on pg_upgrade.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: patch for contrib/isn
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: [BUGS] string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)