On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Steve Prentice prent...@cisco.com wrote:
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/9/14 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
So, I guess I'm sadly left feeling that we should probably reject this
patch.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/14 Steve Prentice prent...@cisco.com:
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/9/14 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
So, I guess I'm sadly left feeling
2009/9/14 Steve Prentice prent...@cisco.com:
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/9/14 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
So, I guess I'm sadly left feeling that we should probably reject this
patch. Anyone want to argue otherwise?
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/9/14 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
So, I guess I'm sadly left feeling that we should probably reject
this
patch. Anyone want to argue otherwise?
+1. I'm really hoping to get something done
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Steve Prentice prent...@cisco.com wrote:
On May 21, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
It's probably time to bite the bullet and redo the parser as has been
suggested in the past, ie fix things so that the main parser is used.
Ideally I'd like to switch the
2009/9/14 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
So, I guess I'm sadly left feeling that we should probably reject this
patch. Anyone want to argue otherwise?
+1. I'm really hoping to get something done about the plpgsql parsing
situation before 8.5 is out,
--On Donnerstag, Mai 21, 2009 11:46:24 -0700 Steve Prentice
prent...@cisco.com wrote:
Just for the record, you'd have to put the same kluge into the
T_RECORD
and T_ROW cases if we wanted to do it like this.
Patch updated.
Steve,
it seems there's something broken, patch complains about a
On Jul 17, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Bernd Helmle wrote:
it seems there's something broken, patch complains about a broken
format. Can you please provide a new diff file?
Sorry about that--probably got messed up as I pasted it into the
message. I've attached the patch this time.
On May 21, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
It's probably time to bite the bullet and redo the parser as has been
suggested in the past, ie fix things so that the main parser is used.
Ideally I'd like to switch the name resolution priority to be more
Oracle-like, but even if we don't do that
