so 24. 11. 2018 v 22:03 odesÃlatel Corey Huinker
napsal:
>
>
>> >>psql> \if :i >= 5
>> >>
>> > I think we're ok with that so long as none of the operators or values
>> has a
>> > \ in it.
>> > What barriers do you see to re-using the pgbench grammar?
>>
>> The pgbench expression grammar mimic
>
> >>psql> \if :i >= 5
> >>
> > I think we're ok with that so long as none of the operators or values
> has a
> > \ in it.
> > What barriers do you see to re-using the pgbench grammar?
>
> The pgbench expression grammar mimics SQL expression grammar,
> on integers, floats, booleans & NULL.
>
>
Hello Corey,
psql> \if :i >= 5
I think we're ok with that so long as none of the operators or values has a
\ in it.
What barriers do you see to re-using the pgbench grammar?
The pgbench expression grammar mimics SQL expression grammar,
on integers, floats, booleans & NULL.
I'm unsure a
>
>
>psql> \if :i >= 5
>
>
I think we're ok with that so long as none of the operators or values has a
\ in it.
What barriers do you see to re-using the pgbench grammar?
Hello Stephen,
[...] So, I tend to agree w/ Andrew that while this is a good topic to
have on -hackers, it shouldn't be a CF entry. I wouldn't draw any
conclusions from Andrew closing it out as "not appropriate for CF".
Sure. As I had no committer feedback on the discussion for 3 months, I
Greeting Fabien,
* Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote:
> >I set it to Rejected. This seems like a misuse of the CF process,
> >which is about discussing actual patches.
>
> Somehow.
So, I tend to agree w/ Andrew that while this is a good topic to have on
-hackers, it shouldn't be a CF ent
Hello Andrew,
I set it to Rejected. This seems like a misuse of the CF process,
which is about discussing actual patches.
Somehow.
As I have not received feedback from committers about the desirability of
the feature, I interpret that as "the feature is not desirable", and I
will not deve
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>
>> I do not mind spending some time for elegance, but I mind spending time for
>> nothing.
>>
>> I hope some committers will also express their views about the feature.
>>
>
> There's
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> I do not mind spending some time for elegance, but I mind spending time for
> nothing.
>
> I hope some committers will also express their views about the feature.
>
There's a commitfest entry for this but no patch. So I am marking this
as
Note that this can already be done by relying on server-side expressions:
SELECT :SERVER_VERSION_NUM >= 11 AS "version_11_plus" \gset
\if :version_11_plus
...
\endif
Not very elegant, but functional. I'm not sure there is a compelling
reason to have this feature beyond elegance.
n
2018-06-24 16:13 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO :
>
> Hello Pavel,
>
> This is a discussion without actual patch intended for pg12, to be added
to CF 2018-09. The expected end result is either "returned with
feedback",
meaning proceed to send some big patch(es), or "rejected", meaning the
Hello Pavel,
This is a discussion without actual patch intended for pg12, to be added
to CF 2018-09. The expected end result is either "returned with feedback",
meaning proceed to send some big patch(es), or "rejected", meaning the
project does not want this, no point in submitting something.
Hi
2018-03-03 13:32 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>
>
> 2018-03-03 11:35 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO :
>
>>
>> Hello devs,
>>
>> This is a discussion without actual patch intended for pg12, to be added
>> to CF 2018-09. The expected end result is either "returned with feedback",
>> meaning proceed to sen
2018-03-03 11:35 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO :
>
> Hello devs,
>
> This is a discussion without actual patch intended for pg12, to be added
> to CF 2018-09. The expected end result is either "returned with feedback",
> meaning proceed to send some big patch(es), or "rejected", meaning the
> project do
Hello devs,
This is a discussion without actual patch intended for pg12, to be added
to CF 2018-09. The expected end result is either "returned with feedback",
meaning proceed to send some big patch(es), or "rejected", meaning the
project does not want this, no point in submitting something.
15 matches
Mail list logo
