On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Nikhil S wrote:
>
>> > Hmmm, well variables can default to NULL too. The backend code tries to
>> > track those variables which default to NULL or to other values. For the
>> > rest, it defaults them to "". It then uses construct_md_array to
>> > generate
>> > the
> > Hmmm, well variables can default to NULL too. The backend code tries to
> > track those variables which default to NULL or to other values. For the
> > rest, it defaults them to "". It then uses construct_md_array to generate
> > the output string for type TEXTOID. Dunno if we can have nothing
On 11 February 2011 20:28, Dave Page wrote:
> I did apply the earlier patch - the one you sent on 2nd Feb. I can't
> find any others.
I'm referring to wx29_phase2_first.patch - sent on 9th of Feb. You
said this shortly afterwards:
>> Perhaps you should commit my earlier patch. It's very difficul
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan
wrote:
> On 11 February 2011 19:44, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan
>> wrote:
>>> I'm building it now.
>>>
>>> Should the OGL headers really be in a wx directory of their own? My
>>> instinct is "no".
>>
>> I j
On 11 February 2011 19:44, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan
> wrote:
>> I'm building it now.
>>
>> Should the OGL headers really be in a wx directory of their own? My
>> instinct is "no".
>
> I just did that to avoid editing all the source files. It's no biggie
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan
wrote:
> I'm building it now.
>
> Should the OGL headers really be in a wx directory of their own? My
> instinct is "no".
I just did that to avoid editing all the source files. It's no biggie
to change though.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.b
I'm building it now.
Should the OGL headers really be in a wx directory of their own? My
instinct is "no".
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hack
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Peter Geoghegan
wrote:
> On 11 February 2011 12:54, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> The latter, but I'll do the former to get there I expect. Unless
>> you've done all the work already?
>
> No, I haven't. I imagine you want to do it a certain way, and I might
> have my own
Can you try again please? That appears to just be an empty file.
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Nikhil S wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Note that if there are no default values, the the defvals column is
>> > completely empty. Now why we see the "" for non-default arguments - the
>> > issue seems to be on the server side in the contrib module calls to
>> > compute
>> > th
>
> > Note that if there are no default values, the the defvals column is
> > completely empty. Now why we see the "" for non-default arguments - the
> > issue seems to be on the server side in the contrib module calls to
> compute
> > the default values.
>
> We need to change that then - we can't
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Nikhil S wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Nikhil S wrote:
>> > One side-effect of this feature is that earlier where non-default
>> > variables
>> > appeared as empty, they will now appear wi
On 11 February 2011 12:54, Dave Page wrote:
> The latter, but I'll do the former to get there I expect. Unless
> you've done all the work already?
No, I haven't. I imagine you want to do it a certain way, and I might
have my own ideas, so there isn't much point in proceeding until we
have consen
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan
wrote:
> On 11 February 2011 03:34, Dave Page wrote:
>> Or just what he sent - it didn't take long to fix it up last time. I
>> see it now though anyway... thanks!
>
> Are you going to integrate it into our tree, or do you just want to
> see what I
On 11 February 2011 03:34, Dave Page wrote:
> Or just what he sent - it didn't take long to fix it up last time. I
> see it now though anyway... thanks!
Are you going to integrate it into our tree, or do you just want to
see what I see?
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgadmin-hackers
15 matches
Mail list logo