On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 22 08:56:02 -0400 2011:
Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:28:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with you. ?If we had a whole pile of options it might be worth
having heap_openrv() and heap_openrv_extended() so as not to
complicate the simple
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:28:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with you. ?If we had a whole pile of options it might be worth
having
The attached patch is rebased one towards the latest tree, using
relation_openrv_extended().
Although it is not a matter in this patch itself, I found a problem on
the upcoming patch
that consolidate routines associated with DropStmt.
Existing RemoveRelations() acquires a lock on the table owning
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached patch is rebased one towards the latest tree, using
relation_openrv_extended().
Committed.
Although it is not a matter in this patch itself, I found a problem on
the upcoming patch
that consolidate
I revised my patch based on your there-is-no-try-v2.patch.
It enabled to implement 'missing_ok' support without modification of
orders to solve the object name and relation locking.
Thanks,
2011/6/22 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:11:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Some of the refactoring you've done here seems
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv()
alone and add a missing_ok argument to try_heap_openrv() and
try_relation_openrv().
+1 for that, although the try_ prefix might be inappropriate naming
now; how about
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 22 08:56:02 -0400 2011:
Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv()
alone and add a missing_ok argument to try_heap_openrv() and
try_relation_openrv(). Passing true would give the same behavior as
presently; passing
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 22 08:56:02 -0400 2011:
Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv()
alone and add a missing_ok argument to try_heap_openrv() and
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Sorry, the previous revision did not update regression test part
towards the latest one.
Some of the refactoring you've done here seems likely to break things,
because you're basically making the relation locking happen
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Some of the refactoring you've done here seems likely to break things,
because you're basically making the relation locking happen later than
it does not, and that's going to cause problems.
get_object_address_relobject() is a particularly egregious
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Some of the refactoring you've done here seems likely to break things,
because you're basically making the relation locking happen later than
it does not, and that's going to cause
Thanks for your review.
2011/6/19 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached patch is a preparation to rework implementation of DROP
statement
using a common code. That intends to apply get_object_address() to
Sorry, the previous revision did not update regression test part
towards the latest one.
2011/6/19 Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp:
Thanks for your review.
2011/6/19 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached patch is a preparation to rework implementation of DROP statement
using a common code. That intends to apply get_object_address() to resolve
name
of objects to be removed, and eventually minimizes the number
The attached patch is a preparation to rework implementation of DROP statement
using a common code. That intends to apply get_object_address() to resolve name
of objects to be removed, and eventually minimizes the number of places to put
permission checks.
Its first step is an enhancement of
17 matches
Mail list logo
