Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release
Date
Msg-id Pine.NEB.3.95.980416110112.10565G-100000@hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> >
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> >
> > > > > My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?"  The
> > > > > bugs are serious and cause crashes.
> > > > > Do we disable it?
> > > > Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
> > > > v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)
> > >
> > > Hmm. What is the downside to leaving it in with caveats or "stay away"
> > > warnings in the release notes? Since it didn't exist as a feature
> > > before, the only downside I see is somewhat increased traffic on the
> > > questions list...
> >
> >     I liked the one suggestion about having it as a compile time
> > option until its fixed...
>
> How about an elog(NOTICE,"...") so it runs, but they see the NOTICE
> every time.

    That works too...but how does something like that work from within
a C program?  Or Perl?



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Status of 6.3.2 snapshot on alpha/Digital Unix