Hi Tom, listers,
Thanks for the info.
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>> None, I fear. The stuff you are fooling with is leftover from the old
>> PostQuel language. Most of it is suffering from bit rot, because the
>> developers' focus has been on SQL92 compliance for the last six or seven
>> years.
>
Damn! Not what I wanted to hear :-(
>> I hadn't realized that SQL99 had caught up to PostQuel in this
>> area ;-).
>
FWIW, this is actually one of the primary reasons that I became
interested in PostgreSQL, before I even knew about SQL3/SQL99. Seems
like such a cool idea :-)
>> Sounds like we will have to dust off some of that stuff and
>> get it working again. No promises about timeframe, unless someone
>> steps up to the plate to do the work...
>
OK, what few coding skills I had are so rusty I'm pretty much back to
square one, but I would like to help out where possible (Docs maybe?).
Then again, might as well jump in the deep end, and have a look to see
what needs doing anyway :-)
Can you please give me some pointers as to where I should look in the
docs and code to see how classes are currently handled. I'm thinking
specifically of:
* How (and where) the access methods for class tuples are
implemented and called.
* Where the code for creating classes hides
* Anything else that I should be aware of!
For the moment I guess I don't need to worry about the parser, just how
the operations related to the classes (both system and user) work/are
implemented. Correct?
> What goes around comes around. :-)
And hits you in the back of the head just when you least expect it ...
cheers,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------------
john reid e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
uproot your questions from their ground and the dangling roots will be
seen. more questions!
-mentat zensufi
apply standard disclaimers as desired...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
