Re: Open items list for 8.1
- From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
- To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
- Subject: Re: Open items list for 8.1
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:33:10 +0100
- Message-id: <E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4CC2F34(at)ratbert(dot)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Marc
> G. Fournier
> Sent: 28 September 2005 00:50
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL-development; Neil Conway
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1
>
>
> IMHO, changes like this *should not* have been allowed during
> beta, period
> ... even during feature freeze, it would have been questionable :(
Agreed. It's not like they weren't discussed to death prior to then as
well.
Whilst I'm not so wed to the changes to the others, pg_cancel_backend()
should certainly not be changed on whim - I know for a fact there are
people for whom this will cause problems.
Regards, Dave
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index