| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Removal of pg_variable, pg_inheritproc, pg_ipl |
| Date: | 2001-05-15 00:57:15 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.33.0105142157020.68237-100000@mobile.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Why did you remove indisclustered?
> >
> > Useless it may be, but gratuitously breaking at least two extant clients
> > doesn't seem like a good idea ...
>
> I realize what you are saying now. Older versions of ODBC still
> reference indisclustered, even though it was bogus. I will put the
> column into pg_index and mark it to be removed at some future date.
why is it being removed again? I think I missed that discussion, sorry ;(
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-05-15 01:09:14 | Re: Removal of pg_variable, pg_inheritproc, pg_ipl |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-05-15 00:49:03 | Re: Removal of pg_variable, pg_inheritproc, pg_iplf |