Re: SQL:2011 Application Time Update & Delete

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 Application Time Update & Delete
Date: 2026-01-22 15:23:01
Message-ID: b4216e13-0fc0-42ce-82e5-9feacd5537e1@eisentraut.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 19.01.26 18:43, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> One stupid question from me: should we add
>
> ````
> t.typanalyze!='range_typanalyze'::regproc or t.typinput !=
> 'range_in'::regproc or t.typoutput != 'range_out'::regproc or
> t.typreceive != 'range_recv'::regproc or typsend !=
> 'range_send'::regproc;
>
> ````

Maybe, but this seems to be outside of this patch. There are also
similar considerations for arrays, domains, etc.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Dilger 2026-01-22 15:53:21 Re: Inval reliability, especially for inplace updates
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2026-01-22 15:21:54 Re: SQL:2011 Application Time Update & Delete