Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: [HACKERS] Concurrently updating anupdatable view)

2007-06-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm sorry guys but I don't agree this is a TODO item. > ... > > Also, methinks we should have agreed behaviour before we make something > > a TODO item. > > There is a whole *lot* of stuff in the TODO list that does not have a > conse

Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: [HACKERS] Concurrently updating anupdatable view)

2007-06-01 Thread Tom Lane
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm sorry guys but I don't agree this is a TODO item. ... > Also, methinks we should have agreed behaviour before we make something > a TODO item. There is a whole *lot* of stuff in the TODO list that does not have a consensus solution yet. You should n

Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: [HACKERS] Concurrently updating anupdatable view)

2007-06-01 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Simon Riggs wrote: On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 19:56 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Added to TODO: * Fix self-referential UPDATEs seeing inconsistent row versions in read-committed mode http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-05/msg00507.php I'm sorry guys but I don't agree this is a T

Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: [HACKERS] Concurrently updating anupdatable view)

2007-06-01 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 19:56 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Added to TODO: > > * Fix self-referential UPDATEs seeing inconsistent row versions in > read-committed mode > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-05/msg00507.php > I'm sorry guys but I don't agree this is a TODO item.