On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 17:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, I wonder whether it wouldn't be a better idea to declare the
> pg_prepared_statement view's parameter_types column as regtype[]
> instead of oid[].
Yeah, good point -- I had thought that using type names would be
ambiguous in the presence o
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Woops, good point. Attached is a revised patch that doesn't modify the
> grammar, and includes updates to the documentation and regression tests.
BTW, I wonder whether it wouldn't be a better idea to declare the
pg_prepared_statement view's parameter_types
On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 12:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> You're doing it wrong. There is no need for any special case whatever
> in gram.y --- ordinary lookup of the type name will do fine.
Woops, good point. Attached is a revised patch that doesn't modify the
grammar, and includes updates to the doc
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only trickiness was allowing "UNKNOWN" to be specified in the list
> of type names in the PREPARE statement. Since UNKNOWN was previously an
> unreserved_keyword, this caused reduce/reduce conflicts:
You're doing it wrong. There is no need for any spe
