The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Works for me...let's say next Friday?
> > >
> > > Bruce, would you be willing to maintain a Status list for this minor
> > > release? There are two or three patches floating around which would seem
> > > to be candidates, and I suspect that there may be one or two things
> > > someone (Tom Lane?) thinks I am looking at, but I'm not clear on what is
> > > resolved and what is not.
> > >
> > > So, a starting list:
> > >
> > > Terry M.'s contrib addition
> > > Tatsuo's Multi-Byte patches
> > > Hiroshi's ParseComplexProject() patches
> > > (should include regression example?)
> > > Constantin's PgAccess patches
> > > Possible portability problems with PgAccess and Tcl-8.1
> > > Size int4 -> size_t in c.h (put off 'til v6.5?)
> > >
> > > Anything else?
> >
> > I'd like to see Jans 2 patches, the LIMIT one and the one that
> > makes ORDER BY ose index if one is available (actually it omits the
> > unnecessary sort node if possible).
>
> v6.4.1 is a bug fix release, no extra features will be added...Jan
> is planning on releasing a 'LIMIT-patch' after v6.4.1 so that if someone
> wants it, its there, but it will not be in the standard distribution until
> v6.5...
Aw... ;(p
When not accepting the ORDER BY patch into 6.4 the explanation was
that soon after 6.4 there will be a performance-enchancement release
(no new features) called 6.4.1 for things like this.
I guessed this would be the one.
And for me the ORDER BY patch is actually a bugfix - it enables me to
get at my huge table in a predictable order. Without the patch the same
query used to kill the computer.
(BTW, how could we test for such cases that exhaust some resources?we obviously can't include them in standard
regressiontests)
And, I don't need the LIMIT patch nearly as much as ORDER BY,
I can do declare_cursor-move-fetch myself.
It would still be very nice if moving past end would not render
the cursor unusable.
-----
Hannu
