|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 04:22:22PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2018, at 05:52, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 2) indexam.sgml mentions using pg_strcasecmp() for consistency with the
>> core code when defining amproperty for an index AM. Well, with this
>> patch I think that for consistency with the core code that would involve
>> using strcmp instead, extension developers can of course still use
> That part I’m less sure about, the propname will not be casefolded by the
> parser so pg_strcasecmp() should still be the recommendation here no?
Yes, you are right. I had a brain fade here as all the option names here
go through SQL-callable functions.
>> Those are changed as well in the attached, which applies on top of your
>> v6. I have added as well in it the tests I spotted were missing. If this
>> looks right to you, I am fine to switch this patch as ready for
>> committer, without considering the issues with isCachable and isStrict
>> in CREATE FUNCTION of course.
> Apart from the amproperty hunk, I’m definately +1 on adding your patch on top
> of my v6 one. Thanks for all your help and review!
OK. Could you publish a v7? I will switch the entry as ready for
|Next Message||Masahiko Sawada||2018-01-24 01:38:57||Re: Missing wal_receiver_status_interval in Subscribers section|
|Previous Message||Peter Geoghegan||2018-01-24 01:35:03||Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11|