Horton

Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org>

View thread
From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu, hackers@postgresql.org, ssimkovi@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at
Date: 1998-04-16T15:01:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > 
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> > 
> > > > > My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?"  The
> > > > > bugs are serious and cause crashes.
> > > > > Do we disable it?
> > > > Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
> > > > v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)
> > > 
> > > Hmm. What is the downside to leaving it in with caveats or "stay away"
> > > warnings in the release notes? Since it didn't exist as a feature
> > > before, the only downside I see is somewhat increased traffic on the
> > > questions list...
> > 
> > 	I liked the one suggestion about having it as a compile time
> > option until its fixed...
> 
> How about an elog(NOTICE,"...") so it runs, but they see the NOTICE
> every time.

	That works too...but how does something like that work from within
a C program?  Or Perl?