Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On lör, 2010-08-21 at 15:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The only thing that seems like it might need discussion is the name
>> to give the datatype. My first instinct was pg_expr or pg_expression,
>> but there are some cases where this doesn't exactly fit. In
>> particu
On lör, 2010-08-21 at 15:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The only thing that seems like it might need discussion is the name
> to give the datatype. My first instinct was pg_expr or pg_expression,
> but there are some cases where this doesn't exactly fit. In
> particular,
> pg_rewrite.ev_action conta
On Aug 21, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Aug 21, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We agreed that we ought to do $SUBJECT in 9.1.
>
>> One argument against this is that it might cause the current fix to get less
>> testing.
>
> Less testing than what?
Is t
Robert Haas writes:
> On Aug 21, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We agreed that we ought to do $SUBJECT in 9.1.
> One argument against this is that it might cause the current fix to get less
> testing.
Less testing than what?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-
On Aug 21, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We agreed that we ought to do $SUBJECT in 9.1.
One argument against this is that it might cause the current fix to get less
testing.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscripti
On 21 August 2010 20:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> * Change all system catalog columns holding expression trees to be
> declared as this type.
*snip*
> We could go with something like pg_parse_tree, perhaps. Or maybe
> that's overthinking it.
How about pg_expr_tree?
--
Thom Brown
Registered Linux us
