On 3/11/19 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> I'm going to mark this as rejected. Here's a possible doc patch
> Maybe s/strictly/ordinary/, or some other word? "strictly"
> doesn't convey much to me. Otherwise seems fine.
OK, done.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:07 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > I'm going to mark this as rejected. Here's a possible doc patch
>
> Maybe s/strictly/ordinary/, or some other word? "strictly"
> doesn't convey much to me. Otherwise seems fine.
>
How about:
While the COALESCE,
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> I'm going to mark this as rejected. Here's a possible doc patch
Maybe s/strictly/ordinary/, or some other word? "strictly"
doesn't convey much to me. Otherwise seems fine.
regards, tom lane
po 11. 3. 2019 v 18:04 odesílatel David Steele napsal:
> On 3/11/19 6:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> > On 3/6/19 10:24 AM, Chapman Flack wrote:
> >> On 3/6/19 10:12 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Having reviewed the thread, I'm with Andres and Tom. Maybe though we
> >>> should have a
On 3/11/19 6:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 3/6/19 10:24 AM, Chapman Flack wrote:
On 3/6/19 10:12 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Having reviewed the thread, I'm with Andres and Tom. Maybe though we
should have a note somewhere to the effect that you can't use VARIADIC
with these.
Perhaps such a
On 3/6/19 10:24 AM, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 3/6/19 10:12 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Having reviewed the thread, I'm with Andres and Tom. Maybe though we
>> should have a note somewhere to the effect that you can't use VARIADIC
>> with these.
> Perhaps such a note belongs hoisted into the
st 6. 3. 2019 v 16:24 odesílatel Chapman Flack
napsal:
> On 3/6/19 10:12 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> > Having reviewed the thread, I'm with Andres and Tom. Maybe though we
> > should have a note somewhere to the effect that you can't use VARIADIC
> > with these.
>
> Perhaps such a note belongs
On 3/6/19 10:12 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Having reviewed the thread, I'm with Andres and Tom. Maybe though we
> should have a note somewhere to the effect that you can't use VARIADIC
> with these.
Perhaps such a note belongs hoisted into the functions-conditional
section of the manual, making
On 3/4/19 9:39 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/1/19 3:59 AM, Chapman Flack wrote:
>> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
>> make installcheck-world: tested, passed
>> Implements feature: tested, passed
>> Spec compliant: not tested
>>
On 3/1/19 3:59 AM, Chapman Flack wrote:
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:tested, passed
For completeness, I'll
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:tested, passed
For completeness, I'll mark this reviewed again. It passes
so 23. 2. 2019 v 20:23 odesílatel Chapman Flack
napsal:
> On 02/23/19 13:35, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > please, see, attached patch
>
> It is getting close, for my purposes. There is still this:
>
> >> Can the sentence added to the doc be changed to "These functions support
> >> passing parameters
On 02/23/19 13:35, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> please, see, attached patch
It is getting close, for my purposes. There is still this:
>> Can the sentence added to the doc be changed to "These functions support
>> passing parameters as an array after VARIADIC
>> keyword."? That is, s/supports/support/
so 23. 2. 2019 v 18:28 odesílatel Chapman Flack
napsal:
> On 02/23/19 01:22, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > so 23. 2. 2019 v 4:50 odesílatel Chapman Flack
> > napsal:
>
> >> In transformMinMaxExpr:
> >> The assignment of funcname doesn't look right.
>
> ... it still doesn't.
>
fixed
> >> Two new
On 02/23/19 01:22, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> so 23. 2. 2019 v 4:50 odesílatel Chapman Flack
> napsal:
>> In transformMinMaxExpr:
>> The assignment of funcname doesn't look right.
... it still doesn't.
>> Two new errors are elogs. ...
>> I am not sure if there is a way for user input to trigger
so 23. 2. 2019 v 4:50 odesílatel Chapman Flack
napsal:
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world: tested, passed
> Implements feature: tested, passed
> Spec compliant: not tested
> Documentation:tested,
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:tested, passed
The latest patch provides the same functionality without growing
On 02/22/19 19:31, Chapman Flack wrote:
> minmax_variadic-20190222-3.patch same as -2 but for doc grammar fix
> (same fix made in minmax_variadic-20190221b.patch).
and naturally I didn't attach it.
-Chap
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
index 86ff4e5c9e..aa4e80cca7
On 02/22/19 14:57, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I am sending second variant (little bit longer, but the main code is not
> repeated)
minmax_variadic-20190222-3.patch same as -2 but for doc grammar fix
(same fix made in minmax_variadic-20190221b.patch).
Regards,
-Chap
pá 22. 2. 2019 v 13:42 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
napsal:
> Hi
>
> čt 21. 2. 2019 v 22:05 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
>
>> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> > čt 21. 2. 2019 v 3:20 odesílatel Chapman Flack
>> > napsal:
>> >> I am not sure I have an answer to the objections being raised on
>> grounds
>>
Hi
čt 21. 2. 2019 v 22:05 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > čt 21. 2. 2019 v 3:20 odesílatel Chapman Flack
> > napsal:
> >> I am not sure I have an answer to the objections being raised on grounds
> >> of taste. To me, it's persuasive that GREATEST and LEAST are
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:tested, passed
On 02/21/19 16:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> I
On 02/21/19 11:31, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I wrote doc (just one sentence) and minimal test. Both can be enhanced.
Attaching minmax_variadic-20190221b.patch, identical but for
s/supports/support/ and s/a/an/ in the doc.
Regards,
-Chap
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
David Fetter writes:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:04:41PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I still say we should reject this and invent array_greatest/array_least
>> functions instead.
> Might other array_* functions of this type be in scope for this patch?
Uh ... no, I wouldn't expect that. Why
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:04:41PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I still say we should reject this and invent array_greatest/array_least
> functions instead.
Might other array_* functions of this type be in scope for this patch?
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Pavel Stehule writes:
> čt 21. 2. 2019 v 3:20 odesílatel Chapman Flack
> napsal:
>> I am not sure I have an answer to the objections being raised on grounds
>> of taste. To me, it's persuasive that GREATEST and LEAST are described in
>> the docco as functions, they are used much like variadic
Hi
čt 21. 2. 2019 v 3:20 odesílatel Chapman Flack
napsal:
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world: tested, passed
> Implements feature: tested, passed
> Spec compliant: not tested
> Documentation:not
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Latest patch passes installcheck-world as of d26a810 and does what
Hi
út 12. 2. 2019 v 2:00 odesílatel Chapman Flack
napsal:
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world: tested, failed
> Implements feature: not tested
> Spec compliant: not tested
> Documentation:not tested
>
st 9. 1. 2019 v 1:07 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > We cannot to write
> > SELECT least(VARIADIC ARRAY[1,2,3]);
> > Attached patch add this possibility to least, greatest functions.
>
> TBH, I don't find that natural at all. If I were looking for the
> functionality
Pavel Stehule writes:
> We cannot to write
> SELECT least(VARIADIC ARRAY[1,2,3]);
> Attached patch add this possibility to least, greatest functions.
TBH, I don't find that natural at all. If I were looking for the
functionality "smallest element of an array", I think I'd expect to find
that
so 10. 11. 2018 v 19:12 odesílatel Vik Fearing
napsal:
> On 08/11/2018 15:59, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > We can pass variadic arguments as a array to any variadic function. But
> > some our old variadic functions doesn't supports this feature.
> >
> > We cannot to write
> >
> > SELECT
> "Vik" == Vik Fearing writes:
>> Attached patch add this possibility to least, greatest functions.
Vik> Is there any particular reason you didn't just make least and
Vik> greatest actual functions?
least() and greatest() have some type unification logic that I don't
think works for
On 08/11/2018 15:59, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi
>
> We can pass variadic arguments as a array to any variadic function. But
> some our old variadic functions doesn't supports this feature.
>
> We cannot to write
>
> SELECT least(VARIADIC ARRAY[1,2,3]);
>
> Attached patch add this possibility to
34 matches
Mail list logo
