Hi Varun, I've reviewed your patch. Looks good from my side. Just stylistic comments. Feel free to keep your own version if you don't agree with them.
I think that you could have used the m_flags field, but having a specific member makes things a lot clearer in my opinion. Perhaps Sanja has a different opinion. Next step is to figure out how to use this new flag from sp_head in the execution part. If you get completely stuck, let us know. :) Vicentiu On Tue, 24 May 2016 at 11:30 Sanja <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, the decision is right. I'll check later the code on github. > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Varun Gupta <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> I had been going through the LEX struct and could not find any flag >> member there which could be used to specify if a function is aggregate or >> not. So i created the new flag inside sp_head, so as to make sure it could >> be used for stored procedures too in the future. >> I have committed the changes on GitHub :) >> >> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Vicențiu Ciorbaru <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Varun, >>> >>> Getting the parser to accept the syntax is a good first step. Writing >>> tests is the correct way to go also. >>> >>> Now we need to have a way to pass this extra information to the part of >>> the code that stores / executes this procedure. When we encounter this >>> AGGREGATE_SYM syntax we have to record it somewhere. We generally use the >>> LEX structure for this. See if there is any flag member within it that you >>> can use for this purpose. If you can't find any, you can potentially create >>> one yourself. >>> >>> Now, it would be a good time to try and familiarize yourself with how we >>> get from having a regular parsed function to storing it and afterwards >>> executing it. This is the main logic that we have to deal with. I'm not >>> going to suggest you any specific thing to do right now as there are >>> multiple ways to do this. Try and come up with a simple plan on how to >>> extend this functionality for our use case. You don't have to code it all, >>> just yet :). We'll improve (or perhaps change it) afterwards. It doesn't >>> have to be perfect the first time, but this way you'll get a try at >>> designing an implementation idea. >>> >>> Great job so far! >>> Vicentiu >>> >>> On Mon, 23 May 2016 at 09:04 Varun Gupta <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> As in my previous mail I have added the FETCH statement to the parser >>>> and have tested it, when the syntax is correct . Now I am writing test that >>>> would also give an error for incorrect syntax. Also I would like how to >>>> proceed further :). >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers >>>> Post to : [email protected] >>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers >>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
