| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] IS OF |
| Date: | 2003-08-08 22:26:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3F342396.70701@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>
>>OK. If the attached patch is acceptable/applied, I'll fix and resend the
>>doc patch.
>
> I'm unconvinced that the parse-time-constant implementation Lockhart
> started has anything whatever to do with the semantics the SQL99 spec
> has in mind.
Yeah - I've realized this is quite a bit harder than it seemed on the
surface. However it is still useful, as is, when working with
polymorphic functions.
So do we rip it out, leave it undocumented, or document it including the
deviation from spec?
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-08 22:38:49 | Re: [HACKERS] IS OF |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-08 22:25:41 | Re: Correlation in cost_index() |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-08 22:38:49 | Re: [HACKERS] IS OF |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-08 22:03:17 | Re: [HACKERS] IS OF |