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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

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