|From:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|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 | Resend email|
> On 24 Jan 2018, at 02:37, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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
Attached is a rebased v7 patch which has your amendments (minus propname) which
passes make check without errors.
The volatility patch is also rebased included, but there the discussion whether
to keep or drop the deprecated syntax first needs to happen (started in your
|Next Message||KAWAMICHI Ryoji||2018-01-24 09:17:02||Re: proposal: alternative psql commands quit and exit|
|Previous Message||Amit Langote||2018-01-24 08:25:08||Re: non-bulk inserts and tuple routing|