[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Riggs) writes:
> Every time we introduce a feature that changes output, we just put an if
> test in saying sql_compatibility = X, (the release we added feature).
>
> Straightforward, futureproof. Cool.
This is somewhat like the way that some shells try to emulate others;
f
It would make PostgreSQL too much like Oracle ;) Let's keep PostgreSQL
simple and compact please.
I prefer applications retest when migrating to new PostgreSQL version. In
this case surprises happen then you expect them not in some unforeseen point
of time in the future.
Keeping all this old functi
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Not foolproof, but still worth it. This would allow many users to
upgrade to 8.4 for new features, yet without changing apps.
Won't there normally be a number of changes that *cannot* be covered by
such a parameter, without a whole lot more work in th
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> What I would like is a parameter called sql_compatibility which has
>> settings such as 8.3, 8.4 etc.. By default it would have the value 8.4,
>> but for people that want to upgrade *without* retesting their
>> application, they co
Simon Riggs wrote:
> What I would like is a parameter called sql_compatibility which has
> settings such as 8.3, 8.4 etc.. By default it would have the value 8.4,
> but for people that want to upgrade *without* retesting their
> application, they could set it to 8.3.
I think down this route lies
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Tom's recent changes to allow hash distinct (yay!) prompted something
> that I'd thought about previously.
>
> Subtle changes in the output of queries can force an application retest,
> which then can slow down or prevent an upgrade to the latest release. We
> always assume th
Tom's recent changes to allow hash distinct (yay!) prompted something
that I'd thought about previously.
Subtle changes in the output of queries can force an application retest,
which then can slow down or prevent an upgrade to the latest release. We
always assume the upgrade itself is the problem
