* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> Also, these were added in 9.4, so introducing this many differences
> >> between 9.4 and 9.5+ will make back-patching harder.
>
> > That's certainly true, but we don't want cur
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Also, these were added in 9.4, so introducing this many differences
>> between 9.4 and 9.5+ will make back-patching harder.
> That's certainly true, but we don't want current or future hackers to be
> confused either.
Ye
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> None of this renaming seems like an improvement to me.
I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure it's improving things either.
Certainly, we shouldn't be dumping out the withCheckOptions node and
perhaps we should move its place in Query and add
On 24 September 2015 at 21:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> - List *ri_WithCheckOptions;
>> - List *ri_WithCheckOptionExprs;
>> + List *ri_InsertedCheckClauses;
>> + List *ri_InsertedCheckClauseExprs;
>
>> The distinction between a "clause" and an "expr" is
I wrote:
> - List *ri_WithCheckOptions;
> - List *ri_WithCheckOptionExprs;
> + List *ri_InsertedCheckClauses;
> + List *ri_InsertedCheckClauseExprs;
> The distinction between a "clause" and an "expr" is not very obvious,
> and certainly most other places in
Stephen Frost writes:
> Alright, attached is an attempt at doing these renames. I went a bit
> farther since it seemed to make sense to me (at least at the time, I'm
> wondering a bit about it now), so, please provide any thoughts or
> feedback you have regarding these changes.
> Further, rename
All,
and this totally should have gone to -hackers instead, sorry about that.
Please ignore the one to -committers, if possible.
Tom, all,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> My vote would be to rename and reposition the field in HEAD and 9.5
> and accept the corresponding initdb. We alrea
