On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 13:42, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think forcing an initdb might be more trouble than this wart is worth. > >> +1. I would not make this change unless we have to force an initdb >> anyway. And I really hope we don't, because I'm sort of hoping the >> next 9.0 release will be rc1. > > Hm? I don't think that an initdb here would have any impact on whether > we can call the next drop RC1 or not. We're talking about removing a > single built-in entry in pg_proc --- it's one of the safest changes we > could possibly make.
Great, I was afraid people would want another beta if we forced an initdb. So a hearty +1 for fixing it and not doing another beta (pending other bugs obviously). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
