standard_conforming_strings
in [PgSql]
|
From: Bruce Momjian on 14 Jul 2010 11:03 Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(a)agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> An actual plan here might look like "let's flip it before 9.1alpha1 > >> so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it" ... > > > > "Hey, let's flip it in 9.1 CF 1, so that we can have some alpha testing > > cycles on it." > > Should we do this? Patch attached. +1 -- Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 14 Jul 2010 11:37 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(a)agliodbs.com> wrote: > An actual plan here might look like "let's flip it before 9.1alpha1 > so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it" ... >> >> "Hey, let's flip it in 9.1 CF 1, so that we can have some alpha testing >> cycles on it." > Should we do this? Patch attached. I'm still scared to death of the security implications, but if we don't do it now, when will be a better time? Might as well try it and see what breaks. Note there had better be a large compatibility warning in the alpha release notes, and we had better pester driver authors to test with 9.1alpha1 as soon as it's out. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Richard Huxton on 15 Jul 2010 01:30 On 14/07/10 15:48, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Josh Berkus<josh(a)agliodbs.com> wrote: >>> An actual plan here might look like "let's flip it before 9.1alpha1 >>> so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it" ... >> >> "Hey, let's flip it in 9.1 CF 1, so that we can have some alpha testing >> cycles on it." > > Should we do this? Patch attached. Any reason not to add a line to the 9.0 docs/release notes saying "WARNING: The PGDG currently plan to change this setting's default in 9.1"? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 15 Jul 2010 11:43 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Jul 15, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Richard Huxton <dev(a)archonet.com> wrote: >> Any reason not to add a line to the 9.0 docs/release notes saying "WARNING: The PGDG currently plan to change this setting's default in 9.1"? > Well, mostly that we could change our mind if it makes too big a boom. > And it's not as if we could go back and update everyone's docs > after-the-fact. Yeah. Our track record for predicting in the version-N docs what changes will be made in version N+1 is spectacularly bad; we should not try that here, even if the change is being made before 9.0 actually goes final. There is already a statement that the default will change "in a future release", and that seems sufficient to me. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 15 Jul 2010 09:20
On Jul 15, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Richard Huxton <dev(a)archonet.com> wrote: > On 14/07/10 15:48, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Josh Berkus<josh(a)agliodbs.com> wrote: >>>> An actual plan here might look like "let's flip it before 9.1alpha1 >>>> so we can get some alpha testing cycles on it" ... >>> >>> "Hey, let's flip it in 9.1 CF 1, so that we can have some alpha testing >>> cycles on it." >> >> Should we do this? Patch attached. > > Any reason not to add a line to the 9.0 docs/release notes saying "WARNING: The PGDG currently plan to change this setting's default in 9.1"? Well, mostly that we could change our mind if it makes too big a boom. And it's not as if we could go back and update everyone's docs after-the-fact. I agree we need some press, but the docs are not the right vehicle. ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |