Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is in the 7.2.X CVS that we would want to release?
CVS logs show the following as post-7.2.1 changes in REL7_2_STABLE branch.
Draw your own conclusions ...
regards, tom lane
2002-06-15 14:38 tgl
* src/backend/ut
What is in the 7.2.X CVS that we would want to release?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Yeah. This is fixed in current sources, and I back-patched it into
> >> the REL7_2 br
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yeah. This is fixed in current sources, and I back-patched it into
>> the REL7_2 branch, but current plans don't seem to include a 7.2.2
>> release --- we'll be going straight to 7.3 beta instead.
> Is it worth doing a 7.2.2 patch that wil
> Yeah. This is fixed in current sources, and I back-patched it into
> the REL7_2 branch, but current plans don't seem to include a 7.2.2
> release --- we'll be going straight to 7.3 beta instead.
Is it worth doing a 7.2.2 patch that will dump people's foreign keys as
ALTER TABLE/ADD FOREIGN KEY
"Kristian Eide" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There seems to be a bug when dumping a view which is a UNION of selects, one
> of which has an ORDER BY. A pair of paranthesises around the select is
> missing, and this cause a subsequent restore to fail.
Yeah. This is fixed in current sources, and
There seems to be a bug when dumping a view which is a UNION of selects, one
of which has an ORDER BY. A pair of paranthesises around the select is
missing, and this cause a subsequent restore to fail. This is quite annoying
as the backup file must be manually edited before it can be restored, and
