Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0310211822330.29086-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?  (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> We now have another reason to, which is Chris K-L's point about
> unqualified names in the various SQL-language built-in functions.
> I am about to commit that fix (with another catversion bump for
> good measure...)

Oh dear.  We really need this function-specific schema path that the SQL
standard seems to talk about.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?