Hello
New version of SQL/PSM patch is available. I am sending only link,
because mail with attached patch was lost. Documentation is on
available from http://www.pgsql.cz/index.php/SQL/PSM_Manual
http://www.pgsql.cz/patches/plpgpsm83.diff.gz
Regards
Pavel Stehule
---(end
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
You should be able to remove CONVERT as a grammar keyword altogether
-- the remaining production for CONVERT as a function name seems dead
weight now (not to mention that it prevents having user-defined
functio
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> You should be able to remove CONVERT as a grammar keyword altogether
>> -- the remaining production for CONVERT as a function name seems dead
>> weight now (not to mention that it prevents having user-defined
>> functions named CONVERT
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The attached patch removes "convert ... using ..." as recently discussed
on -hackers. Most of the patch is regression test changes.
You should be able to remove CONVERT as a grammar keyword altogether
-- the remaining product
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The attached patch removes "convert ... using ..." as recently discussed
> on -hackers. Most of the patch is regression test changes.
You should be able to remove CONVERT as a grammar keyword altogether
-- the remaining production for CONVERT as a func
The attached patch removes "convert ... using ..." as recently discussed
on -hackers. Most of the patch is regression test changes.
If there's no objection I'll apply it in a day or two.
cheers
andrew
convusing.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
---(end
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's a patch that fixes the send/recv functions to work like the
> manual says. It fixes the free/pfree typo as well.
Applied with a further fix: the patch caused xml_recv to call
parse_xml_decl with a non-null-terminated string, which could in
Julius Stroffek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I rewrote a patch a bit.
This hook seems very strangely defined to me. Why did you not put the
hook at the point where the current geqo-vs-regular decision is made?
I do not see the value of duplicating the joinlist-expansion logic,
which is what you'
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since we already advance latestCompletedXid on subtransaction and toplevel
> transaction aborts, we might as well use the value to rule out surely
> in-progress transctions at the top of TransactionIdIsInProgress.
This patch bothers me a bit, becau
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Hannes Eder wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >Hannes Eder wrote:
>> >> Is it worth doing this the "Perl-way" and using File::Find? If so,
>> I can
>> >> work an a patch for that.
>> >>
>> > It's certainly cleaner that way, but I don't find it a major issue.
>> But I'd
>>
10 matches
Mail list logo