On 26/04/13 15:34, Gavin Flower wrote:
> On 26/04/13 15:19, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> While in general you are quite correct - in the above case
>> (particularly as I've supplied a test case) it should be pretty
>> obvious that any moderately modern version of postgres on any
>> supported platform will exhibit this.
>
> While I admit that I did not look closely at your test case - I am aware
> that several times changes to Postgres from one minor version to
> another, can have drastic unintended side effects (which might, or might
> not, be relevant to your situation). Besides, it helps sets the scene,
> and is one less thing that needs to be deduced.
>
Indeed - however, my perhaps slightly grumpy reply to your email was
based on an impression of over keen-ness to dismiss my message without
reading it (!) and a - dare I say it - one size fits all presentation of
"here are the hoops to jump through". Now I spent a reasonable amount of
time preparing the message and its attendant test case - and a comment
such as your based on *not reading it* ...errrm... well lets say I think
we can/should do better.
I am concerned that the deafening lack of any replies to my original
message is a result of folk glancing at your original quick reply and
thinking... incomplete problem spec...ignore... when that is not that
case - yes I should have muttered "9.2" in the original email, but we
have covered that now.
Regards
Mark
