Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Bruce,
> >
> >> However, with this fixed in 8.0, it probably isn't worth adding to the
> >> FAQ.
> >
> > I'd disagree. We can expect people to be using 7.3 and 7.4 for 2 years
> > yet.
>
> Have to agree ... I'm still suppor
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
However, with this fixed in 8.0, it probably isn't worth adding to the
FAQ.
I'd disagree. We can expect people to be using 7.3 and 7.4 for 2 years
yet.
Have to agree ... I'm still supporting clients using 7.2 ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.O
Bruce,
> However, with this fixed in 8.0, it probably isn't worth adding to the
> FAQ.
I'd disagree. We can expect people to be using 7.3 and 7.4 for 2 years yet.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TI
Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:
> I thought about that, and it seems like the upgrade path from 7.x ->
> 8.x is going to be slower than among any of the 7.x releases. 8.0 is
> still several months away and it will probably be several months more
> before people who are affected by this issue in produc
I thought about that, and it seems like the upgrade path from 7.x ->
8.x is going to be slower than among any of the 7.x releases. 8.0 is
still several months away and it will probably be several months more
before people who are affected by this issue in production databases.
The other thing I
Yes, 4.8 would be the right spot. Not sure why we got so many reports
recently though.
However, with this fixed in 8.0, it probably isn't worth adding to the
FAQ.
---
Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> Considering th
Bruce,
Considering the activity on the lists (at least recently and, I think,
historically) about postgres not casting (usually integer) constant
values across types, could there be a mention of this made in the FAQ?
It seems like a logical case for inclusion under 4.8:
http://www.postgresql.or
