On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2011 3:29 PM, "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Nikhil.
>>
>> Are there any catalog changes with the refactoring, that change the
>> way parameters are represented that need to be reflected elsewhere in
>> pgFunction.cpp?
>>
>> Also, does anyone object to back-patching this? It's not a bug fix,
>> but it does mean that we don't support corresponding versions of PPAS
>> and PG in the same version of pgAdmin which seems undesirable.
>
> I wasn't aware they were supposed to be? Is that new, or has it always been?
It's never really come up before, hence why I'm asking :-)
> More to the point - is this the only thing needed to reach compatibility? If
> so, i guess we can make an exception. If not, then there is no point without
> doing a bunch of more patches for other things, in which case i will
> object...
Compatibility; yes, I hope so. Functionality; probably not, but I'm
not going to suggest we back patch for new features. I'd like for it
to work without going bang, even if we don't support the latest
features yet.
> The
>> patch is pretty straightforward and seems low risk.
>
> This is of course a prerequisite in either case? I also assume it affects
> only an edbas codepath?
That's the intention.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company