Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-05-19T15:39:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2020-May-19, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, that would have been better per project protocol: if a tarball > re-wrap becomes necessary then it would be messy not to include this > change along with fixing whatever urgent bug there might be. > > However, I thought the case for delaying this fix till post-wrap was kind > of thin anyway, so if that does happen I won't be too fussed about it. > Otherwise I would've said something earlier on this thread. In the end, it's a judgement call. In this case, my assessment was that the risk was small enough that I could push after I saw the tarballs announced. In other cases I've judged differently and waited for longer. If the fix had been even simpler, I would have pushed it right away, but my confidence with grammar changes is not as high as I would like. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
WITH TIES: number of rows is optional and defaults to one
- c301c2e739c6 13.0 landed