Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoY83vCDT16Gv06pnADgSYon4y-YuuOPeu2rjfNf=vMHhA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname (Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname
Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 3:39 PM Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Since there hasn't been any agreement on that point, I've just rebased the patch to apply cleanly against the current master: This looks OK to me. There may be better ways to do some of it, but there's no rule against further improving the code later. Also, since the issue was introduced in v14, we probably shouldn't wait forever to do something about it. However, there is a procedural issue here now that we are past feature freeze. I think someone could defensibly take any of the following positions: (A) This is a new feature. Wait for v16. (B) This is a bug fix. Commit it now and back-patch to v14. (C) This is a cleanup that is OK to put into v15 even after feature freeze but since it is a behavior change we shouldn't back-patch it. I vote for (C). What do other people think? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: