On 2/27/17 01:46, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> Here is a new patch set that addresses your comments. The structure is
>> still the same, just a bunch of things have been renamed based on
>> suggestions.
> +
> + Drop multiple functions
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Here is a new patch set that addresses your comments. The structure is
> still the same, just a bunch of things have been renamed based on
> suggestions.
+
+ Drop multiple functions in one command:
+
+DROP FUNCTION sqrt(integer), sq
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I don't see any problems with 0001.
>>
>> I was wondering, should we rename funcname -> name, and funcargs ->
>> args, or perhaps
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I don't see any problems with 0001.
>
> I was wondering, should we rename funcname -> name, and funcargs ->
> args, or perhaps the whole FuncWithArgs struct, so there is no confusion
> when use
On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I don't see any problems with 0001.
I was wondering, should we rename funcname -> name, and funcargs ->
args, or perhaps the whole FuncWithArgs struct, so there is no confusion
when used with operators?
In 0002, the comment of
> class_args/CreateOpCla
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 12/1/16 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a
>> general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is
>> some amount of type tracking. FuncWithArgs
Forwarding some comments I neglected to send to the list...
On 1/3/17 9:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/2/17 1:04 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 12/31/16 10:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out
@@ -80,9
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 12/1/16 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a
>> general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is
>> some amount of type tracking. FuncWithArg
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a
> general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is
> some amount of type tracking. FuncWithArgs would be one such type,
> Typename would be anoth
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/16 5:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I looked at this briefly. I agree that 0001-0003 are simple cleanup of
> > the grammar and could be pushed without further ado.
>
> Done.
>
> > However, starting
On 11/23/16 5:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I looked at this briefly. I agree that 0001-0003 are simple cleanup of
> the grammar and could be pushed without further ado.
Done.
> However, starting
> with 0004 I begin to get queasy. The plan seems to be that instead of
> "objname" always being a List
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal
>> grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not
>> necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they explain the
>> progression of the changes nice
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal
> grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not
> necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they expla
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal
> grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not
> necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they explain the
> progression of the changes nicely, so I left them like that f
Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal
grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not
necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they explain the
progression of the changes nicely, so I left them like that for review.
The end goal is to m
15 matches
Mail list logo