Review: information schema parameter_default implementation (v2)
This is a review of the patch submitted in
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1384483678.5008.1.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net
(information schema parameter_default implementation).
Previous review from Amit Khandekar covers technic
On 11/20/13, 8:39 PM, Rodolfo Campero wrote:
> 2013/11/20 Peter Eisentraut mailto:pete...@gmx.net>>
>
> Updated patch
>
>
> I can't apply the patch; maybe I'm doing something wrong?
It looks like you are not in the right directory.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@p
2013/11/20 Peter Eisentraut
> Updated patch
>
I can't apply the patch; maybe I'm doing something wrong?
$ git apply v2-0001-Implement-information_schema.parameters.parameter.patch
v2-0001-Implement-information_schema.parameters.parameter.patch:49:
trailing whitespace.
CAST((ss.x).n A
Updated patch
>From f82bc0c522b7c238b1dd8e5bb3495babd5b6192a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:43:15 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v2] Implement information_schema.parameters.parameter_default
column
Reviewed-by: Ali Dar
Reviewed-by: Amit Khandekar
---
doc/src/
2013/11/20 Rodolfo Campero
> Peter,
>
> This patch no longer applies, because CATALOG_VERSION_NO
> in src/include/catalog/catversion.h has changed. I touched the patch and
> got it to apply without other problems (I haven't built yet).
>
>
Make fails:
[...]
make -C catalog schemapg.h
make[3]: se
Peter,
This patch no longer applies, because CATALOG_VERSION_NO
in src/include/catalog/catversion.h has changed. I touched the patch and
got it to apply without other problems (I haven't built yet).
Regards,
2013/11/14 Peter Eisentraut
> Updated patch attached.
>
> On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 12:09
On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 16:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm a bit confused as to where this column is coming from? There's
> no such thing in SQL:2008 as far as I can see.
SQL:2011
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> [ 0001-Implement-information_schema.parameters.parameter_de.patch ]
I'm a bit confused as to where this column is coming from? There's
no such thing in SQL:2008 as far as I can see. If it's coming from
some not-yet-ratified draft, maybe we should wait for ratification
Updated patch attached.
On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 12:09 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> > > 2) I found the following check a bit confusing, maybe you can make
> it
> > > better
> > > if (!argmodes || argmodes[i] == PROARGMODE_IN || argmodes[i] ==
> > > PROARGMODE_INOUT || argmodes[i] == PROARGMODE_VARI
On 15 September 2013 01:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Here is an updated patch which fixes the bug you have pointed out.
>
> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 18:59 +0500, Ali Dar wrote:
>
> > I checked our your patch. There seems to be an issue when we have OUT
> > parameters after the DEFAULT values.
>
>
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 20:13 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> What's the reason behind calling pg_has_role(proowner, 'USAGE') before
> calling pg_get_function_arg_default() ? :
>
> CASE WHEN pg_has_role(proowner, 'USAGE')
> THEN pg_get_function_arg_default(p_oid, (ss.x).n)
> ELSE NULL E
On 15 September 2013 01:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Here is an updated patch which fixes the bug you have pointed out.
>
> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 18:59 +0500, Ali Dar wrote:
>
> > I checked our your patch. There seems to be an issue when we have OUT
> > parameters after the DEFAULT values.
>
>
On 15 September 2013 01:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Here is an updated patch which fixes the bug you have pointed out.
>
> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 18:59 +0500, Ali Dar wrote:
>
> > I checked our your patch. There seems to be an issue when we have OUT
> > parameters after the DEFAULT values.
>
>
I have assigned myself as reviewer for this one.
The logic of pg_get_function_arg_default() looks good. I will reply with
any code-level comments later, but just a quick question before that:
What's the reason behind calling pg_has_role(proowner, 'USAGE') before
calling pg_get_function_arg_defaul
Here is an updated patch which fixes the bug you have pointed out.
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 18:59 +0500, Ali Dar wrote:
> I checked our your patch. There seems to be an issue when we have OUT
> parameters after the DEFAULT values.
Fixed.
> Some other minor observations:
> 1) Some variables are not
Another thing I forget: The patch does not apply because of the changes in
"catversion.h"
Regards,
Ali Dar
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Ali Dar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Here is an implementation of the
>> information_schema.parameters.parameter
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is an implementation of the
> information_schema.parameters.parameter_default column.
>
> I ended up writing a C function to decode the whole thing from the
> system catalogs, because it was too complicated in SQL, so I abandoned
> th
Here is an implementation of the
information_schema.parameters.parameter_default column.
I ended up writing a C function to decode the whole thing from the
system catalogs, because it was too complicated in SQL, so I abandoned
the approach discussed in [0].
[0]:
http://archives.postgresql.org/m
18 matches
Mail list logo
