Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No, I don't think that's very related; that's a simple matter of
>> implementing an ALTER FUNCTION command. The other thing will require
>> figuring out how to do dependency tracking.
> Got it. Let me ask, if they change the column type, would they u
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does this relate to allowing functions to be recreated with the same OID
> as the original function? I think we need that badly for 7.2.
No, I don't think that's very related; that's a simple matter of
implementing an ALTER FUNCTION command. The other
Alessio Bragadini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> But it's not really tracking the variable; with Ian's proposed
>> implementation, after
>>
>> create table foo(bar int4);
>>
>> create function fooey(foo.bar%type) ...;
>>
>> drop table foo;
>>
>> create table foo(bar int8);
>>
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The PAM support patch concerns me --- it looks like yet another chunk
> > of code that will tie up the postmaster in a single-threaded
> > conversation with a remote daemon that may or may not respond promptly.
> > I recommend holding off on this until
Tom Lane wrote:
> But it's not really tracking the variable; with Ian's proposed
> implementation, after
>
> create table foo(bar int4);
>
> create function fooey(foo.bar%type) ...;
>
> drop table foo;
>
> create table foo(bar in
>> We need to discuss whether we like the %TYPE feature proposed by Ian
> OK, one idea is to throw a elog(NOTICE) when they use this feature,
> stating that it will not track column changes. Another option is to
> just forget about the feature entirely. Do we have people
> who like this featur
Richard Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about a feature in psql which would read something like '%type' and
> convert it to the appropriate thing before it passed it to the backend?
That's just about what Ian's patch does, only it does it during backend
parsing instead of in the client.
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 05:49:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I presume that Ian is not thinking about such a scenario, but only about
> using %type in a schema file that he will reload into a freshly created
> database each time he edits it. That avoids the issue of whether %type
> declarations ca
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But don't we already have problems with changing functions that use
> tables or does this open a new type of problem?
But this feature isn't about functions that use tables internally;
it's about tying the fundamental signature of the function to a tabl
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We need to discuss whether we like the %TYPE feature proposed by Ian
>> Taylor. It seems awfully nonstandard to me, and I'm not sure that the
>> value is great enough to be worth inventing a nonstandard feature.
>> ISTM that people don't normally tie f
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, now that we have started 7.2 development, I am going to go through
> the outstanding patches and start to apply them or reject them. They
> are at:
> http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
> I could use help in identifying which patches are
11 matches
Mail list logo
