| From: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design |
| Date: | 2017-03-14 15:33:08 |
| Message-ID: | CALAY4q-CsJj=DHY8ztCn3bTAbJM43hKh8nV3L-+ru1G_n0muZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
hi
Some errors are related to just CORRESPONDING without any columns. So using
> expr doesn't help here. So parse node CORRESPONDING can solve both issues.
>
>
In current implementation pointing to a node means pointing to a node’s
first element so I don’t think we can be able to point to CORRESPONDING
without any columns
I find out that there is already a node prepare for the case called A_Const.
The attached patch use that node
Regards
Surafel
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| corresponding_clause_v5.patch | application/octet-stream | 59.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-14 15:40:16 | Re: scram and \password |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2017-03-14 15:30:25 | Re: scram and \password |