From: | "Pavlo Baron" <pb(at)pbit(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TODO question |
Date: | 2001-12-28 16:17:19 |
Message-ID: | 00ed01c18fbb$22de87f0$6500a8c0@bw1 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane:
> In fact the patch seemed quite incomplete to me; adding a new parsenode
> type requires much more than just a struct declaration.
btw, it's not correct, that just a new structure has been declared. I added
the T_Default to the Type-Enum and it seems to me, my new parsenode type has
been full-automatically integrated in the parser-workflow. In the gram.y,
there is a new set of rules describing the DEFAULT value in the INSERT
stmt - this is the place, where it's being identified and node-ed (using
it's type), the transformation has got the new T_Default-case leaving this
node "as is", and it's being transformed (replaced by the default value
taken from the relation specified by the corresponding parsestate-field)
later.
> But this isn't
> the right time of the cycle to be reviewing new-feature patches.
ok, but I hope you've got a 3%-free--ear-capacity at least to answer some of
my questions (having a very bad timing ,-) ). I don't ask offen and about
every step, but sometimes it breaks through...
>
> BTW, patches should usually be sent to pgsql-patches not pgsql-hackers.
...where they will get dusty before the new release has been finished... ,)
no problem, I'll wait a little with my patches but not with my questions ,)
sorry if I increased your current stress level :-)
rgds
Pavlo Baron
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavlo Baron | 2001-12-28 16:29:36 | Re: TODO question |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-28 15:39:32 | Re: TODO question |