| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems? |
| Date: | 2003-10-22 01:34:51 |
| Message-ID: | 3F95DEBB.6070502@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Reviewed, tested, applied.
Thanks.
>>maybe should test all the other qualified functions?
>
>
> What other qualified functions? There might possibly be some issues in
> contrib stuff, but there are no other SQL-language functions defined in
> the main system (except information_schema, which we already checked).
Sorry - I meant "other functions that are now properly qualified in my
patch". ie, you have already tested them.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Preece | 2003-10-22 01:39:51 | Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-10-22 01:32:55 | Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-22 02:49:47 | Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems? |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-10-22 01:27:39 | Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems? |