On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 17:22, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> 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 :-)
No, I meant is the EDBAS version <x> supposed to "match" community pg
version <x>?
I haven't really looked at it since years ago, where iirc edbas was
somewhere halfway between pg 8.2 and 8.3, and the version number
didn't actually match either one..
>> 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.
Oh yeah, compatibility is all we're discussing here. So in that case,
I'm fine with backpatching it.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/