On 2/27/17 01:46, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> Here is a new patch set that addresses your comments. The structure is
>> still the same, just a bunch of things have been renamed based on
>> suggestions.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Here is a new patch set that addresses your comments. The structure is
> still the same, just a bunch of things have been renamed based on
> suggestions.
+
+ Drop multiple functions in one command:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I don't see any problems with 0001.
>>
>> I was wondering, should we
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I don't see any problems with 0001.
>
> I was wondering, should we rename funcname -> name, and funcargs ->
> args, or perhaps the whole FuncWithArgs struct,
On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I don't see any problems with 0001.
I was wondering, should we rename funcname -> name, and funcargs ->
args, or perhaps the whole FuncWithArgs struct, so there is no confusion
when used with operators?
In 0002, the comment of
>
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 12/1/16 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a
>> general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is
>> some
Forwarding some comments I neglected to send to the list...
On 1/3/17 9:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/2/17 1:04 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 12/31/16 10:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out
@@
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 12/1/16 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a
>> general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is
>> some
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a
> general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is
> some amount of type tracking. FuncWithArgs would be one
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/16 5:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I looked at this briefly. I agree that 0001-0003 are simple cleanup of
> > the grammar and could be pushed without further ado.
>
> Done.
>
> > However, starting
On 11/23/16 5:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I looked at this briefly. I agree that 0001-0003 are simple cleanup of
> the grammar and could be pushed without further ado.
Done.
> However, starting
> with 0004 I begin to get queasy. The plan seems to be that instead of
> "objname" always being a List
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal
>> grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not
>> necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they explain the
>>
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal
> grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not
> necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is a patch series that implements several changes in the internal
> grammar and node representation of function signatures. They are not
> necessarily meant to be applied separately, but they explain the
> progression of the changes nicely, so I left them like that
14 matches
Mail list logo