Thread: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented
I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change, and
certainly not for throwing error on both cases.
regards, tom lane
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented
From
Simon Riggs
Date:
On 9 June 2012 16:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: >> Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented > > I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change, It was hardly a subject of marked disagreement. > and certainly not for throwing error on both cases. Why would we do it for GLOBAL but not LOCAL also? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 9 June 2012 16:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change,
> It was hardly a subject of marked disagreement.
It was hardly a subject of discussion, as yet.
Personally I'm pretty doubtful about suddenly starting to throw errors
for syntax we've accepted without complaint for over nine years, on
merely the grounds that we *might* get around to making it do something
different in the future. You yourself have complained loudly about
compatibility breaks that were considerably better founded than this.
Possibly a NOTICE or WARNING (with some other text than this) would be
a better choice for warning people that a compatibility break might
be coming.
regards, tom lane
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented
From
Simon Riggs
Date:
On 9 June 2012 17:19, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: >> On 9 June 2012 16:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change, > >> It was hardly a subject of marked disagreement. > > It was hardly a subject of discussion, as yet. > > Personally I'm pretty doubtful about suddenly starting to throw errors > for syntax we've accepted without complaint for over nine years, on > merely the grounds that we *might* get around to making it do something > different in the future. You yourself have complained loudly about > compatibility breaks that were considerably better founded than this. > > Possibly a NOTICE or WARNING (with some other text than this) would be > a better choice for warning people that a compatibility break might > be coming. OK, I will revert pending further discussion and agreement. The reason for action was simply to close an ubobtrusive open item, but its clear it wasn't. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services