David Fetter wrote:
That we're in the position of having prevN_wd for N = 1..5 as the
current code exists is a sign that we need to refactor the whole
thing, as you've suggested before.
I'll work up a design and prototype for this by this weekend.
Great. I don't think issues around tab
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 07:40:31AM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
That we're in the position of having prevN_wd for N = 1..5 as the
current code exists is a sign that we need to refactor the whole
thing, as you've suggested before.
I'll work up a design and prototype for this
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:48:54PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:15 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Patch attached. If you think my changes are ok,
please change the patch status to Ready for Committer.
Done :)
I have committed part of this patch.
Great!
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:15 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Patch attached. If you think my changes are ok,
please change the patch status to Ready for Committer.
Done :)
I have committed part of this patch. The rest is attached. I don't
know that there's any problem with it, but
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:21, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Please find attached a patch changing both this and updateable to
updatable, also per the very handy git grep I just learned about :)
I think the patch has two issues to be fixed.
It expands all tables (and views) in
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:48:04PM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:21, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Please find attached a patch changing both this and updateable to
updatable, also per the very handy git grep I just learned about :)
I think the patch has
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 18:18, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
It expands all tables (and views) in tab-completion after INSERT,
UPDATE, and DELETE FROM. Is it an intended change?
I found it was a simple bug; we need ( ) around selcondition.
In addition, I modified your patch a bit:
* I
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:13:37PM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 18:18, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
It expands all tables (and views) in tab-completion after INSERT,
UPDATE, and DELETE FROM. Is it an intended change?
I found it was a simple bug; we need (
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:01:28PM -0500, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:21 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Please find attached a patch changing both this and updateable to
updatable, also per the very handy git grep I just learned about :)
I looked a little
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:21 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Please find attached a patch changing both this and updateable to
updatable, also per the very handy git grep I just learned about :)
I looked a little more at this patch today. I didn't find any serious
problems, though it
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
That seems like a matter for a separate patch. Looking this over, I
found I'd created a query that can never get used, so please find
enclosed the next version of the patch :)
I like deletables better than deleteables for
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:37:57PM -0500, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
That seems like a matter for a separate patch. Looking this over, I
found I'd created a query that can never get used, so please find
enclosed the next
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of dom nov 21 21:17:12 -0300 2010:
Given its small and isolated nature, I was hoping we could get this in
sooner rather than later. As I understand it, CFs are there to review
patches that take significant effort for even a committer to
understand, so
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:33:00AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:55:07AM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Do we need to 'add' it?
Possibly. My understanding is that it couldn't really replace it.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:33:00AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:55:07AM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Do we need to 'add'
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 03:36:58PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:33:00AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:55:07AM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:34
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Could someone please commit this? :)
Eh... was there some reason you didn't add it to the CommitFest app?
I forgot.
A fair excuse. :-)
Because that's what I work from.
It's pretty trivial, but I don't feel
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 07:09:08PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Could someone please commit this? :)
Eh... was there some reason you didn't add it to the CommitFest app?
I forgot.
A fair excuse. :-)
Because
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:17 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 07:09:08PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Could someone please commit this? :)
Eh... was there some reason you didn't add it to
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 08:27:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:17 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 07:09:08PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Could someone please commit
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:55:07AM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Do we need to 'add' it?
Possibly. My understanding is that it couldn't really replace it.
Ah, I see. I was wrong. We can have modification privileges
On 25 October 2010 21:01, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Folks,
Please find attached patch for $subject :)
Thanks for looking at this. I forgot about tab completion.
I think that the change to ALTER TRIGGER is not necessary. AFAICT it
works OK unmodified. In fact, the modified code
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:35:13PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On 25 October 2010 21:01, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Folks,
Please find attached patch for $subject :)
Thanks for looking at this. I forgot about tab completion.
I think that the change to ALTER TRIGGER is not
Folks,
Please find attached patch for $subject :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter da...@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:01 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Please find attached patch for $subject :)
Thank you for maintaining psql tab completion,
but I'm not sure whether tgtype is the best column for the purpose.
How about has_table_privilege() to filter candidate relations
in
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:30:49AM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:01 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Please find attached patch for $subject :)
Thank you for maintaining psql tab completion, but I'm not sure
whether tgtype is the best column for the
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
How about has_table_privilege() to filter candidate relations
That's orthogonal to tgtype (snip)
Shall I send a new patch with that added?
Do we need to 'add' it? I intended to replace the JOIN with pg_trigger
to
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:10:53AM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
How about has_table_privilege() to filter candidate relations
That's orthogonal to tgtype (snip) Shall I send a new patch with
that added?
Do we need
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Do we need to 'add' it?
Possibly. My understanding is that it couldn't really replace it.
Ah, I see. I was wrong. We can have modification privileges for views
even if they have no INSTEAD OF triggers.
So, I think your
29 matches
Mail list logo
