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

Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches
Date: 2011-07-31 01:25:58
Message-ID: 4E34AF26.1050306@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07/06/2011 08:26 PM, Brar Piening wrote:
> -------- Original Message  --------
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches
> From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
> To: Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de>
> Date: 06.07.2011 22:58
>
>>> I'll remove my versions from the patch (v9 probably) if those files 
>>> get commited.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm just doing some final testing and preparing to commit the new 
>> pgflex and pgbison.
>
>
> The attached patch includes documentation changes and excludes my 
> versions of pgbison.pl and pgflex.pl which have been replaced by 
> Andrews' versions that are already commited.
>
> As before "perltidy_before.patch" has to be applied first and 
> "VS2010v9.patch" second.
>
>

I just started looking at this a bit. One small question: why are we 
using "use base qw(foo);" instead of "use parent qw(foo);" which I 
understand is preferred these days?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-07-31 01:46:05
Subject: Re: pgbench internal contention
Previous:From: Dean RasheedDate: 2011-07-30 22:40:46
Subject: Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints

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