Re: Closing some 8.4 open items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Closing some 8.4 open items
Date
Msg-id 49DE3D5C.1040109@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Closing some 8.4 open items  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 4/9/09 10:42 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net>  writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@gmx.net>  writes:
>>>>> Here is my thinking, and considering that that would basically involve a
>>>>> forward-looking design decision right now, I would support dropping the
>>>>> cardinality() function from 8.4 (if people agree that this is in fact the
>>>>> design decision to make).
>>>> At this point I'd support that too.
>>> +1
>> Since there were no objections, and there is no time left before beta1,
>> I'm going to go ahead and remove cardinality().
>
> Do we want a TODO?
>

No, I don't think so.  It would just be a tag-on to whatever TODO we 
already have about implementing multisets and collections.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: TODO item
Next
From: "Jignesh K. Shah"
Date:
Subject: Re: Closing some 8.4 open items