| From: | "Hiroshi Saito" <saito(at)inetrt(dot)skcapi(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: dlgOperator_patch |
| Date: | 2003-09-11 06:46:31 |
| Message-ID: | 006901c37830$6ffcd5f0$1f324d80@w2k |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
Hi Dave.
This is patch of pga3.
Please Apply it.
pga2 is thought to want to adjust it tonight.
Regards,
Hiroshi Saito
From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
> > This is one that is not in pga2 - any ideas?
>
> MERGES is specified tacitly.
> Default name in the preparation is put.
> I don't think that it is a problem that it doesn't have
> chkbox.
I think it has as much right to be there as HASHES, however whilst there
is a oprcanhash column in pg_operator, there is no oprcanmerge column.
So what defines a mergeable operator?
> However, are LTCMP, GTCMP necessary?
Yes, I think so. You can specify them when you create an operator (they
are shown as < operator and > operator btw.).
Regards, Dave.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| dlgOperator_merge_patch | application/octet-stream | 529 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2003-09-11 07:37:45 | Re: dlgOperator_patch |
| Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-09-10 21:30:15 | Re: autoconf compiling *.c |