Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-03-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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.

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-02-26 Thread Michael Paquier
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:

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-30 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-17 Thread Michael Paquier
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,

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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 >

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-09 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-05 Thread Jim Nasby
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 @@

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2017-01-03 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-12-22 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
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

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-12-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-11-23 Thread Tom Lane
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 >>

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-11-01 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
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

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-11-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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