On 29/08/2018 16:39, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>>> The majority rule (34 make & 22 free) suggest that it is more often use
>>> than not. I'd suggest to stick to that for consistency & homogeneity.
>>
>> But it's consistently not used in DDL command implementations, only in
>> normal query parsing.
>
The majority rule (34 make & 22 free) suggest that it is more often use
than not. I'd suggest to stick to that for consistency & homogeneity.
But it's consistently not used in DDL command implementations, only in
normal query parsing.
I try to avoid complicated (context-sensitive) rules
On 27/08/2018 11:17, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> About patch 3: applies cleanly independently of the 2 others, compiles,
> "make check" is okay.
>
> A few comments:
>
> There seems to be several somehow unrelated changes: one about copy,
> one about trigger and one about constraints? The two later
On 28/08/2018 08:58, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>>> Even if there is some under-the-hood garbage collection, I'd suggest to
>>> add a free after the call to ComputePartitionAttrs.
>>
>> Hmm, I didn't know about free_parsestate(). It doesn't seem to be used
>> consistently. I suppose you'll want to
Even if there is some under-the-hood garbage collection, I'd suggest to
add a free after the call to ComputePartitionAttrs.
Hmm, I didn't know about free_parsestate(). It doesn't seem to be used
consistently. I suppose you'll want to use it when you have a target
relation that will be
On 27/08/2018 10:53, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> There is a "make_parsestate", but no corresponding free. The usual
> pattern, although there seems to be a few exception, is to "make" and
> "free".
>
> Even if there is some under-the-hood garbage collection, I'd suggest to
> add a free after the
Here are three patches to add more detailed error location support to
some parts of CREATE TABLE (defaults, check constraints, partition
specifications) as well as the COPY command. Examples can be seen in
the regression test output.
The first two are low-hanging fruit, since all the
Hello Peter,
Here are three patches to add more detailed error location support to
some parts of CREATE TABLE (defaults, check constraints, partition
specifications) as well as the COPY command. Examples can be seen in
the regression test output.
The first two are low-hanging fruit, since
I noticed that you provide NULL from "ALTER TABLE" which is calling the
create table machinery:
The structure of the ALTER TABLE code is such that it would be quite
complicated to pass through the required state. It's doable, but would
be a bigger and independent project.
Ok, so no "easy"
On 27/08/2018 10:41, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I noticed that you provide NULL from "ALTER TABLE" which is calling the
> create table machinery:
The structure of the ALTER TABLE code is such that it would be quite
complicated to pass through the required state. It's doable, but would
be a bigger
Hello Peter,
Here are three patches to add more detailed error location support to
some parts of CREATE TABLE (defaults, check constraints, partition
specifications) as well as the COPY command. Examples can be seen in
the regression test output.
The first two are low-hanging fruit, since
Here are three patches to add more detailed error location support to
some parts of CREATE TABLE (defaults, check constraints, partition
specifications) as well as the COPY command. Examples can be seen in
the regression test output.
The first two are low-hanging fruit, since all the information
12 matches
Mail list logo
