| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda <acamari(at)verlet(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences |
| Date: | 2011-08-11 18:25:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1313087143.12350.6.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 11:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm OK with adding a note either to the 9.0 docs only (which means it
> might be missed by a 9.0 user who only looks at the current docs) or
> with adding a note to all versions mentioning the difference in
> behavior with 9.0, but I'm not really sure which way to go with it.
> Or we could just not do anything at all. Anyone else have an opinion?
It seems to be somewhat of a burden to carry a version-specific note
indefinitely... more clutter than helpful. So I'd vote for just changing
the 9.0 docs.
Or, we could add the 9.0-specific note to 9.0 and 9.1 docs, but leave it
out of 'master'. That way it sticks around for a while but we don't have
to remember to remove it later.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-11 20:06:08 | index-only scans |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-08-11 17:56:29 | Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API |