From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Hiroshi Saito" <saito(at)inetrt(dot)skcapi(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: dlgOperator_patch |
Date: | 2003-09-10 09:41:23 |
Message-ID: | 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B844B5D4@mail.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiroshi Saito [mailto:saito(at)inetrt(dot)skcapi(dot)co(dot)jp]
> Sent: 10 September 2003 03:24
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] dlgOperator_patch
>
>
> > 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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Michel POURE | 2003-09-10 13:57:40 | ./configure patch needed to build portable SRPMs |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2003-09-10 08:05:27 | Re: pgadmin3.chm in CVS |