Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >> Do you want to go ahead with your plan of changing what's passed in
> >> FuncInfo? I won't object if you want to do it, but I wouldn't feel
> >> comfortable with backporting such big changes myself.
>
> > I will take a look at it, but not right away.
>
> I spent some more time looking at this, and decided that it's probably
> not really a good plan after all. It would be a significant amount of
> work for what's basically a dead-end back-branch-only patch, given that
> we intend to go with the special-datatype solution for 9.1 and up.
> The work aspect is bad enough, but I also share Robert's nervousness
> about whether it would get enough testing before going out in releases.
> The code that would be getting changed has mutated quite a lot over the
> years, to the point where we'd almost have to test each branch
> separately to have much confidence in the fixes.
>
> Please see what you can do with plugging the holes in the existing
> patch, instead.
I can confirm that this bug, introduced in a minor release, is making
pgAdmin look bad, with repeated popup error boxes while viewing user
objects. Grewsome screenshot attached. ;-)
Are we basically leaving pgAdmin in this state until we come up with a
fix and need a new minor release? We pride ourselves in not introducing
breakage in minor releases, but it has certainly happened in this case,
and it is making pgAdmin look bad. Dave, is there a hack you can add to
pgAdmin to work around the join issue until we can fix the backend?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +