Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmoa_Ut2oEvDf0n0_CBWkRTu9vX-YStrQq7AHF0Cy9XQgjg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters
Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 6 February 2013 17:43, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> On 4 February 2013 19:53, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> This seems pretty close to an accusation of bad faith, which I don't >>>> believe to be present. >>> >>> Robert, this is not an accusation of bad faith, just an observation >>> that we can move forwards more quickly. >> >> It's your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled, but it is not >> an observation of an objective fact. > > And what? You expressed an opinion, as did I. > > I repeat: I don't see why waiting a year changes anything here. Can > you please explain why the situation is improved by waiting a year? What was unclear or incomplete about the last two times I explained it? Here's what I wrote the first time: $ Keep in mind that, as recently as PostgreSQL 9.1, we shipped hstore $ with a =>(text, text) operator. That operator was deprecated in 9.0, $ but it wasn't actually removed until PostgreSQL 9.2. Whenever we do $ this, it's going to break things for anyone who hasn't yet upgraded $ from hstore v1.0 to hstore v1.1. So I would prefer to wait one more $ release. That way, anyone who does an upgrade, say, every other major $ release cycle should have a reasonably clean upgrade path. And here's what I wrote the second time: $ Right now there is one and only one release in $ the field that contains hstore 1.1. If we go ahead and prohibit => as $ an operator name now, we're going to require everyone who is on 9.1 $ and uses hstore and wants to get to 9.3 to either (a) first upgrade to $ 9.2, then update hstore, then upgrade to 9.3; or (b) dig the $ hstore-1.1 update out of a future release, apply it to an earlier $ release on which it did not ship, and then upgrade. I don't know what to add to that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: