Hello
When I worked on parametrised DO statement, I had to solve following issue:
Syntax is:
DO (param list) $$ ... $$ LANGUAGE ... USING expr_list
What is correct way for evaluation of expr_list with specified target types?
I used two techniques:
1) evaluation expressions -
On Saturday, July 7, 2012, Tom Lane wrote:
If we think that operators outside of extensions will be an infrequent
special case, what about just dumping all of them into a single file
named operators? And similarly for casts?
regards, tom lane
+1
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
When I worked on parametrised DO statement, I had to solve following issue:
Syntax is:
DO (param list) $$ ... $$ LANGUAGE ... USING expr_list
What is correct way for evaluation of expr_list with specified target types?
I'd argue that that's a
2012/7/8 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
When I worked on parametrised DO statement, I had to solve following issue:
Syntax is:
DO (param list) $$ ... $$ LANGUAGE ... USING expr_list
What is correct way for evaluation of expr_list with specified
On lör, 2012-07-07 at 11:32 -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
But, since you're using operators, what would you think is an
appropriate name for the file the operator is dumped into?
The name of the operator, just like for any other object. (Assuming
we're using the name of a table for the file for
On lör, 2012-07-07 at 17:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Sure. You need not look further than / to find an operator name that
absolutely *will* cause trouble if it's dumped into a filename
literally.
But that problem applies to all object names.
If we think that operators outside of extensions
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Jul 7, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
3. Try another approach entirely. The idea that I've got in mind here
is to compile the regex using the regex library and then look at the
compiled NFA representation to see if there must
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On lör, 2012-07-07 at 17:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Sure. You need not look further than / to find an operator name that
absolutely *will* cause trouble if it's dumped into a filename
literally.
But that problem applies to all object names.
In
Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes:
So far as I can see, the only LCPRVn marker code that is actually in
use right now is 0x9d --- there are no instances of 9a, 9b, or 9c
that I can find.
I also read in the xemacs internals doc, at
2012/7/5 Shigeru HANADA shigeru.han...@gmail.com:
In addition, is pull_var_clause() reasonable to list up all the attribute
referenced at the both expression tree? It seems to be pull_varattnos()
is more useful API in this situation.
Only for searching, yes. However, sooner or
10 matches
Mail list logo
