Le 21/02/2011 17:27, Magnus Hagander a écrit : > 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. >
I'm not sure this is a really great idea to back-patch new compatibility code. As two already agreed on back-patching, I'm fine with it. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
