| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses |
| Date: | 2021-02-22 08:44:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3c931f0f-6f53-598d-702f-1e6e932690ab@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22.05.20 14:32, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> As an improvement over the spec, I think the vast majority of people
>> will be using simple true/false values. Can we make that optional?
>>
>> CYCLE f, t SET is_cycle USING path
>>
>> would be the same as
>>
>> CYCLE f, t SET is_cycle TO true DEFAULT false USING path
>
> I was also considering that. It would be an easy change to make.
This change has been accepted into the SQL:202x draft. Here is a patch
for it.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Enhanced-cycle-mark-values.patch | text/plain | 16.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-02-22 08:59:09 | Re: repeated decoding of prepared transactions |
| Previous Message | wangsh.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-02-22 08:41:03 | do coverage test without install lcov |