Hi,
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
I am sending actualised patch.
I've volunteered to review this patch, and before getting to read code
and documentation, then to test it, I have some more general question.
The idea to add support for typmods in function signatures came from
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com writes:
The idea to add support for typmods in function signatures came from the
need to have more than one anyelement at a time in a function, and Pavel
proposed that we spell that anyelement(0) and anyelement(1) e.g.
Is that how we want to solve it?
2009/11/17 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com writes:
The idea to add support for typmods in function signatures came from the
need to have more than one anyelement at a time in a function, and Pavel
proposed that we spell that anyelement(0) and anyelement(1)
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/11/17 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
If the only immediate benefit we'd get is multiple anyelement types,
I think we'd be much better advised to just create a few separate
types for that. Function typmods are a big can of worms and we should
2009/11/17 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/11/17 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
If the only immediate benefit we'd get is multiple anyelement types,
I think we'd be much better advised to just create a few separate
types for that. Function typmods
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/11/17 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
There are other issues but these are the ones I think we'd need to
resolve before not after putting in function typmods. Â It'd be
extremely painful and non-backwards-compatible to change our minds
later
2009/11/17 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/11/17 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
There are other issues but these are the ones I think we'd need to
resolve before not after putting in function typmods. It'd be
extremely painful and
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/11/17 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
My point is that if we release 8.5 with these semantics (which as far
as I can tell were not designed, but just fell out of what made for the
shortest patch) then we'll be stuck with them thereafter.
We
2009/11/17 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/11/17 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
My point is that if we release 8.5 with these semantics (which as far
as I can tell were not designed, but just fell out of what made for the
shortest patch) then
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry, it's problem in my english
In hopes that it may help overcome the language barrier if someone
restates the issue in different words, I'll echo Tom's concerns, which
I share.
This cannot change an behave of older applications.
Agreed.
2009/11/17 Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry, it's problem in my english
In hopes that it may help overcome the language barrier if someone
restates the issue in different words, I'll echo Tom's concerns, which
I share.
This
Le 17 nov. 2009 à 20:33, Tom Lane a écrit :
We could to talk about it now. We are not hurry. But I would to see
some progress in this area in next two months. This patch is simple
and doesn't create any new rules or doesn't change behave.
What do you mean it doesn't change the behavior? It
2009/11/17 Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com:
Le 17 nov. 2009 à 20:33, Tom Lane a écrit :
We could to talk about it now. We are not hurry. But I would to see
some progress in this area in next two months. This patch is simple
and doesn't create any new rules or doesn't change behave.
Pavel Stehule escribió:
Hello
actualised version: enhance check inside sql function
What is this against? It has a few suspicious chunks, such as
***
*** 358,364
funcexpr-funcid = funcid;
funcexpr-funcresulttype = rettype;
!
Hello
I am sorry. I'll send a actualised version today.
Pavel
2009/11/13 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Pavel Stehule escribió:
Hello
actualised version: enhance check inside sql function
What is this against? It has a few suspicious chunks, such as
***
***
15 matches
Mail list logo
