Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems?
Date: 2003-10-21 14:13:00
Message-ID: 21903.1066745580@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> *sigh* - it's really not my day today.  Attached is patch that actually 
> compiles and fixes the problem.  We will need to bump CATVERSION, and 
> maybe should test all the other qualified functions?

I think you've identified a real issue, but how many of these modified
functions did you actually test?  I thought SUBSTRING was a reserved
word, for example ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jean-Henry BerevoescuDate: 2003-10-21 14:19:18
Subject: Complex/elaborate user-defined base types
Previous:From: Bob BadourDate: 2003-10-21 14:08:22
Subject: Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-10-21 15:22:35
Subject: Re: pg_dump problems against 7.0
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-10-21 13:37:31
Subject: Re: AIX port current

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group