On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 17:22, Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Feb 21, 2011 3:29 PM, "Dave Page" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Nikhil. >>> >>> Are there any catalog changes with the refactoring, that change the >>> way parameters are represented that need to be reflected elsewhere in >>> pgFunction.cpp? >>> >>> Also, does anyone object to back-patching this? It's not a bug fix, >>> but it does mean that we don't support corresponding versions of PPAS >>> and PG in the same version of pgAdmin which seems undesirable. >> >> I wasn't aware they were supposed to be? Is that new, or has it always been? > > It's never really come up before, hence why I'm asking :-)
No, I meant is the EDBAS version <x> supposed to "match" community pg version <x>? I haven't really looked at it since years ago, where iirc edbas was somewhere halfway between pg 8.2 and 8.3, and the version number didn't actually match either one.. >> More to the point - is this the only thing needed to reach compatibility? If >> so, i guess we can make an exception. If not, then there is no point without >> doing a bunch of more patches for other things, in which case i will >> object... > > Compatibility; yes, I hope so. Functionality; probably not, but I'm > not going to suggest we back patch for new features. I'd like for it > to work without going bang, even if we don't support the latest > features yet. Oh yeah, compatibility is all we're discussing here. So in that case, I'm fine with backpatching it. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
