On 8/22/16 10:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> I'm not happy that utils/acl.h has prototypes for aclchk.c, because
>> acl.h is included all over the place. Perhaps I should make a
>> src/include/catalog/aclchk.c to clean that up.
>
> I've been bothered by that too in t
On 9/6/16 7:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm curious where you are on that? I find myself needing to whack around
> this processing in CREATE EXTENSION, but I don't want to create a merge
> problem for you if you're close to committing.
I have committed what I have for now. Thanks.
--
Peter Eisent
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Here are two WIP patches to improve the DefElem list processing that is
> used by many utility commands.
> One factors out the duplicate checks, which are currently taking up a
> lot of space with duplicate code. I haven't applied this everywhere
> yet, but the patch s
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm not happy that utils/acl.h has prototypes for aclchk.c, because
> acl.h is included all over the place. Perhaps I should make a
> src/include/catalog/aclchk.c to clean that up.
I've been bothered by that too in the past. +1 for the cleanup.
--
Álvaro Herrera
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 1. This patch introduce location in DefElement node, and inject ParserState
> to SQL commands, where ParserState was not used. It allows to show the
> position of an error. This patch is not small, but almost changes are
> trivial.
>
> 2. Th
Hi
2016-08-11 17:32 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On 8/5/16 11:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 8/4/16 2:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Forgot to mention: seems like you should have added a location
> >> argument to makeDefElem.
> >
> > I was hesitating to d
On 8/5/16 11:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/4/16 2:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Forgot to mention: seems like you should have added a location
>> argument to makeDefElem.
>
> I was hesitating to do that lest it break extensions or something, but I
> guess we break bigger things than that all t
On 8/4/16 2:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Forgot to mention: seems like you should have added a location
> argument to makeDefElem.
I was hesitating to do that lest it break extensions or something, but I
guess we break bigger things than that all the time. I'll change it.
--
Peter Eisentraut
On 8/4/16 2:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> +1 on the general idea, but I wonder if it's a problem that you replaced
> an O(N) check with an O(N^2) check. I don't think there are any commands
> that would be likely to have so many options that this would become a
> serious issue, but ...
I'll run some t
I wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> The other adds a location field to the DefElem node.
> +1 for sure, lots of places where that would be a good thing
> (the duplicate check itself, for starters).
Forgot to mention: seems like you should have added a location
argument to makeDefElem.
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Here are two WIP patches to improve the DefElem list processing that is
> used by many utility commands.
> One factors out the duplicate checks, which are currently taking up a
> lot of space with duplicate code. I haven't applied this everywhere
> yet, but the patch s
11 matches
Mail list logo
