Re: error in the example given for numeric data types - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: error in the example given for numeric data types
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwYPCXJ=ybtxn6BvmXYgf9VxNbxJsx7Pq0KDdo5soDGnqQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: error in the example given for numeric data types  (Priyank Rajvansh <rajvansh.priyank@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 10:50 AM Priyank Rajvansh <rajvansh.priyank@gmail.com> wrote:

First of all thanks for your reply.This mean that this was a bug in the previous versions right? 

No, it means that a prior version limitation has been lifted, so a definition that was previously undefined is now defined.  It is not a bug to choose to not implement something.

David J.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_restore mostly idle on restoring a large number of tables
Next
From: Chandy G
Date:
Subject: Re: Toasted column values during replication