-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2013 08:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
> wrote:
>>> OK, simple enough. New patch attached. I still need to do some
>>> testing to verify this does not break anything, but other than
>>> that, any complaints (including the notion of backpatching
>>> this back to 9.1)?
>>
>> Here's a cleaned up version, which also includes documentation.
>> I'll commit back to 9.1 in a day or two unless there are any
>> objections.
>
> Changing SQL syntax in the back-branches isn't normally something
> we do, but I confess I don't see any real reason not to do it in
> this case.
That was part of my hesitation, but I don't see any better way to fix
existing installations and this is pretty well self-contained. Any
other opinions out there?
Joe
- --
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source
Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=RP/c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----