On August 29, 2002 03:37 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One thing I do see though is that there is a completion issue.
>
> Well, (a) the shell type can't be used for anything till you turn it
> into a real type, and (b) the completion issue already exists,
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One thing I do see though is that there is a completion issue.
Well, (a) the shell type can't be used for anything till you turn it
into a real type, and (b) the completion issue already exists, and has
for a long time; you've always been able to c
On August 29, 2002 09:45 am, Tom Lane wrote:
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > YES! Well, sort of. I didn't have any other operators but while I
> > thought that both were the same (after all, I contributed it) someone
> > must have fixed the one in CVS before adding it. The
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> YES! Well, sort of. I didn't have any other operators but while I thought
> that both were the same (after all, I contributed it) someone must have fixed
> the one in CVS before adding it. The one I was working with had the
> operators working
