Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-03-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/27/17 01:46, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> Here is a new patch set that addresses your comments. The structure is >> still the same, just a bunch of things have been renamed based on >> suggestions.

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-02-26 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here is a new patch set that addresses your comments. The structure is > still the same, just a bunch of things have been renamed based on > suggestions. + + Drop multiple functions in one command:

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-30 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> I don't see any problems with 0001. >> >> I was wondering, should we

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I don't see any problems with 0001. > > I was wondering, should we rename funcname -> name, and funcargs -> > args, or perhaps the whole FuncWithArgs struct,

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I don't see any problems with 0001. I was wondering, should we rename funcname -> name, and funcargs -> args, or perhaps the whole FuncWithArgs struct, so there is no confusion when used with operators? In 0002, the comment of >

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-09 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 12/1/16 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a >> general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is >> some

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-05 Thread Jim Nasby
Forwarding some comments I neglected to send to the list... On 1/3/17 9:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/2/17 1:04 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: On 12/31/16 10:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: --- a/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out +++ b/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out @@

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 12/1/16 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a >> general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is >> some

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-12-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a > general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is > some amount of type tracking. FuncWithArgs would be one

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 11/23/16 5:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I looked at this briefly. I agree that 0001-0003 are simple cleanup of > > the grammar and could be pushed without further ado. > > Done. > > > However, starting

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-12-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 11/23/16 5:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I looked at this briefly. I agree that 0001-0003 are simple cleanup of > the grammar and could be pushed without further ado. Done. > However, starting > with 0004 I begin to get queasy. The plan seems to be that instead of > "objname" always being a List

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-11-23 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal >> grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not >> necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they explain the >>

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-11-01 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal > grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not > necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-11-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal > grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not > necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they explain the > progression of the changes nicely, so I left them like that

[HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-10-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they explain the progression of the changes nicely, so I left them like that for review. The end goal is to