Hello
2009/8/9 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
argument for allowing a mixed notation (some of the parameters named
and some not)? ISTM that just serves to complicate both the patch
and the user's-eye view, for no real benefit.
Considering that we are worried about someday having to adjust to a
SQL standard in this area, I think we ought to be as conservative as
possible about what we introduce as user-visible features here.
As an example, if they do go with = as the parameter marker,
mixed notation would become a
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
argument for allowing a mixed notation (some of the parameters
named and some not)? ISTM that just serves to complicate
Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
argument for allowing a mixed notation (some of the parameters named
and some not)? ISTM that just serves to complicate both the patch
and the user's-eye view, for no real benefit.
Considering that we are worried about someday
--On 9. August 2009 12:27:53 -0400 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
argument for allowing a mixed notation (some of the parameters named
and some not)? ISTM that just serves to complicate both the patch
and the user's-eye
Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de writes:
--On 9. August 2009 12:27:53 -0400 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
argument for allowing a mixed notation (some of the parameters named
and some not)? ISTM that just serves to
--On 9. August 2009 13:00:07 -0400 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Mph. Does Oracle adopt the same semantics for what a mixed call means?
I had a look at the Oracle documentation while reviewing this patch, and i
thought we are pretty close to what they do. Maybe Pavel can comment more
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
argument for allowing a mixed notation (some of the parameters named
and some not)? ISTM that just serves to complicate both the patch
and the user's-eye view,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
argument for allowing a mixed notation (some of the parameters named
and some not)? ISTM that just serves to complicate
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
argument for allowing a mixed notation (some of the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think this patch is an exercise in
guessing at what the SQL committee will eventually do, and as such, we
should avoid like the plague making any guesses that carry significant
risk
2009/8/7 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de writes:
Here again a patch version with updated documentation. I will stop
reviewing this patch now and mark this ready for committer, so we have some
time left to incorporate additional feedback.
I'm starting to look at
--On Donnerstag, August 06, 2009 19:10:47 -0400 Tom Lane
t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm starting to look at this now, and my very first reaction was
what in the world is a leaky list?. I'm not sure I like the
data structure itself, but the terminology is certainly completely
unhelpful.
Hrm,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Stepping back a bit, are we sure this is a feature we even want to
support? It was already pointed out in the thread on Parser's hook
based on funccall that SQL:201x may standardize = for this purpose.
Absolutely no evidence has been presented that
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There is definitely not enough evidence here to justify breaking
existing applications, which is what introducing = would do.
When and if there's a ratified standard using =, it'll be time
to break stuff. In the meantime we
Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de writes:
Here again a patch version with updated documentation. I will stop
reviewing this patch now and mark this ready for committer, so we have some
time left to incorporate additional feedback.
I'm starting to look at this now, and my very first reaction
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de writes:
Here again a patch version with updated documentation. I will stop
reviewing this patch now and mark this ready for committer, so we have some
time left to incorporate additional
On Aug 6, 2009, at 7:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de writes:
Here again a patch version with updated documentation. I will stop
reviewing this patch now and mark this ready for committer, so we
2009/8/7 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de writes:
Here again a patch version with updated documentation. I will stop
reviewing this patch now and mark this ready for committer, so we have some
--On Mittwoch, August 05, 2009 05:28:55 +0200 Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
At least, we need to document that both notations behaves different in
this case.
+1
Here again a patch version with updated documentation. I will stop
reviewing this patch now and mark this ready
2009/8/5 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On Mittwoch, August 05, 2009 05:28:55 +0200 Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
At least, we need to document that both notations behaves different in
this case.
+1
Here again a patch version with updated documentation. I will stop
--On Montag, August 03, 2009 23:43:08 +0200 Bernd Helmle
maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
Status Report: I will finish documentation and review tomorrow and will
mark this patch for committer review.
Here's my latest reviewed version of Pavel's patch with adjusted
documentation per latest
2009/8/4 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On Montag, August 03, 2009 23:43:08 +0200 Bernd Helmle
maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
Status Report: I will finish documentation and review tomorrow and will
mark this patch for committer review.
Here's my latest reviewed version of Pavel's patch
--On 4. August 2009 20:22:05 +0200 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Named notation has different algorithm for function detection then
positional notation. There are not exist variadic parameters (because
these parameters hasn't individual names). So only packed variadic
2009/8/5 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On 4. August 2009 20:22:05 +0200 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Named notation has different algorithm for function detection then
positional notation. There are not exist variadic parameters (because
these parameters hasn't
--On Montag, August 03, 2009 12:38:48 -0400 Robert Haas
robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's get back to focusing on the patch that is actually under
consideration here.
Status Report: I will finish documentation and review tomorrow and will
mark this patch for committer review.
--
Thanks
--On Sonntag, August 02, 2009 11:38:22 -0400 Robert Haas
robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the current status of this patch? Is someone (either Pavel or
Bernd) planning to update it further, or should it be marked Ready for
Committer?
I will incorporate some additional docs adjustments
2009/8/3 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On Sonntag, August 02, 2009 11:38:22 -0400 Robert Haas
robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the current status of this patch? Is someone (either Pavel or
Bernd) planning to update it further, or should it be marked Ready for
Committer?
I will
On Aug 3, 2009, at 1:41 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I should to wait with Steve patch - I would to add main sql parser
into plpgsql - than Steve's patch is unnecessary. But if there will be
some problems, then we can use Steve's patch. It is simple - so there
are not big problems with commit.
I
2009/8/3 Steve Prentice prent...@cisco.com:
On Aug 3, 2009, at 1:41 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I should to wait with Steve patch - I would to add main sql parser
into plpgsql - than Steve's patch is unnecessary. But if there will be
some problems, then we can use Steve's patch. It is simple -
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Pavel Stehulepavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/3 Steve Prentice prent...@cisco.com:
On Aug 3, 2009, at 1:41 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I should to wait with Steve patch - I would to add main sql parser
into plpgsql - than Steve's patch is unnecessary. But if
ok - I don't though about it. My goal is integration main parser next
commitfest, but it is true, so somebody would to play with named
params now. Commiting of Steve's patch doesn't break anything.
I'm a little confused here. We are 19 days into a 31 day CommitFest;
you are almost three
On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I sent several notes adding for all patches to be added to
commitfest.postgresql.org prior to the start of CommitFest; AFAIK,
this one was never added.
Hi Robert,
The patch for plpgsql was added as a comment to Pavel's patch. I added
it as a
--On Montag, August 03, 2009 12:38:48 -0400 Robert Haas
robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a little confused here. We are 19 days into a 31 day CommitFest;
you are almost three weeks too late to add a patch to the queue.
Unless you can convince a friendly committer to pick this up out of
--On Montag, August 03, 2009 12:18:13 -0700 Steve Prentice
prent...@cisco.com wrote:
I added it as a comment because it wouldn't make since to commit it or
even review it separately.
That was exactly i was understanding it.
--
Thanks
Bernd
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
Please note that Steve's suggestion is linked into the commitfest
since 2009-05-21, too.
Yeah:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=CommitFest_2009-Firstdiff=6391oldid=6250
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Pavel Stehulepavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/31 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On Montag, Juli 27, 2009 15:24:12 +0200 Bernd Helmle
maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
Hi,
I sending a little bit modified version - I removed my forgotten
comment in
2009/8/2 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Pavel Stehulepavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/31 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On Montag, Juli 27, 2009 15:24:12 +0200 Bernd Helmle
maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
Hi,
I sending a little bit modified
2009/7/31 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On Montag, Juli 27, 2009 15:24:12 +0200 Bernd Helmle
maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
Hi,
I sending a little bit modified version - I removed my forgotten
comment in gram.y
Thanks, i'll look on it asap.
Looks good now.
Here is a slightly
2009/7/31 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On Montag, Juli 27, 2009 15:24:12 +0200 Bernd Helmle
maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
Hi,
I sending a little bit modified version - I removed my forgotten
comment in gram.y
Thanks, i'll look on it asap.
Looks good now.
Here is a slightly
--On Montag, Juli 27, 2009 15:24:12 +0200 Bernd Helmle
maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
Hi,
I sending a little bit modified version - I removed my forgotten
comment in gram.y
Thanks, i'll look on it asap.
Looks good now.
Here is a slightly edited reviewed patch version. I've edited the docs
--On Sonntag, Juli 26, 2009 06:17:49 +0200 Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I sending a little bit modified version - I removed my forgotten
comment in gram.y
Thanks, i'll look on it asap.
--
Thanks
Bernd
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Hello,
fixed patch attached + more regress tests.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2009/7/23 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
2009/7/23 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On Donnerstag, März 05, 2009 08:41:28 +0100 Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I did some cleaning on
Hi,
I sending a little bit modified version - I removed my forgotten
comment in gram.y
Regards
Pavel
2009/7/25 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello,
fixed patch attached + more regress tests.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2009/7/23 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
2009/7/23
--On Donnerstag, März 05, 2009 08:41:28 +0100 Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I did some cleaning on this feature, and I hope so I solve some Tom's
objections
features:
* PostgreSQL's specific syntax for named parameter: value AS name,
* Doesn't change rules for
2009/7/23 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On Donnerstag, März 05, 2009 08:41:28 +0100 Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I did some cleaning on this feature, and I hope so I solve some Tom's
objections
features:
* PostgreSQL's specific syntax for named parameter:
--On Donnerstag, März 05, 2009 08:41:28 +0100 Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I did some cleaning on this feature, and I hope so I solve some Tom's
objections
Attached is a cleaned up version of the patch, the one linked from the
commit fest has some hunks failing to be
2009/7/18 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de:
--On Donnerstag, März 05, 2009 08:41:28 +0100 Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I did some cleaning on this feature, and I hope so I solve some Tom's
objections
Attached is a cleaned up version of the patch, the one linked from
48 matches
Mail list logo
