On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:11:32PM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> Now my question is, how do I indicate that a second version of the
> patch has been submitted on the wiki? Should I leave the primary link
> pointing at the original submission, or update it to point at this
> message?
I'd say add a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Looks cool -- on a first read, I think you should add some more code
> comments at the top of each function specifying whether the texts need
> to be translated by the caller or done by the f
Brendan Jurd escribió:
> I'd like to submit my first version of this patch for review. I have
> introduced a new struct in print.h called printTableContent, which is
> used to compose the contents of a psql table. The methods exposed for
> this struct are as follows:
Looks cool -- on a first re
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Brendan Jurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25/03/2008, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This makes me wonder whether print.c could offer something a bit more
> > > helpful to callers wishing to DIY a tab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31/03/2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" writes:
> > 1. describe malloc's the cells to zero, but print just does a local
> > calloc without any initialisation.
>
> There isn't any functional difference there. I am not sure, but I think
>
The author has been given feedback so this has been saved for the next
commit-fest:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---
Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On 31/03/2008, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On 31/03/2008, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There isn't any functional difference there. I am not sure, but I think
> the reason print.c has its own malloc wrappers instead of depending on
> common.c's is that we use print.c in some bin/scripts/ programs that
> do not want common.c too
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, it looks like:
> 1. describe malloc's the cells to zero, but print just does a local
> calloc without any initialisation.
There isn't any functional difference there. I am not sure, but I think
the reason print.c has its own malloc wrappers inste
Brendan Jurd wrote:
1. describe malloc's the cells to zero, but print just does a local
calloc without any initialisation.
Um, calloc is the same as malloc + zero. Those two seem identical to me.
2. describe only does an mbvalidate for WIN32, but print does it in all cases.
There's this c
On 25/03/2008, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This makes me wonder whether print.c could offer something a bit more
> > helpful to callers wishing to DIY a table; we could have a
> > table-building struct with methods like addHeader and addCe
10 matches
Mail list logo
