Re: python patch

I don't have a problem looking into it but I can't promise I can get it
right. My python skills are fairly good...my postgres internal skills
are still sub-par IMO.

From a cursory review, if attisdropped is true then the attribute/column
should be ignored/skipped?! Seems pretty dang straight forward.

I'll have a look at it and see what I can come up with.

FYI, I'm currently working off of anonymous CVS. The patch I submitted
was against CVS, current within the last couple of hours.

Greg

On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 22:01, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> If you're looking at the Python code, do you feel like trying to submit a
> patch to make it respec the new 'attisdropped' attribute of the
> 'pg_attribute' catalog. This is a flag that indicates that a column is
> dropped and I notice that Python accesses the pg_attribute relation, and
> probably needs to skip over attisdropped columns.
>
> Oh yeah, you'd have to be working with CVS postgres to do this...
>
> Just a thought...no pressure :)
>
> Chris
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Greg Copeland
> > Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2002 10:55 AM
> > To: PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List
> > Subject: [HACKERS] python patch
> >
> >
> > Okay, I read
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2002-06/msg00086.php and never
> > saw a fix offered up. Since I'm gearing up to use Postgres and Python
> > soon, I figured I'd have a hand at trying to get this sucker addressed.
> > Apologies if this has already been plugged. I looked in the archives
> > and never saw a response.
> >
> > At any rate, I must admit I don't think I fully understand the
> > implications of some of the changes I made even though they appear to be
> > straight forward. We all know the devil is in the details. Anyone more
> > knowledgeable is requested to review my changes. :(
> >
> > I also updated the advanced.py script in a somewhat nonsensical fashion
> > to make use of an int8 field in an effort to test this change. It seems
> > to run okay, however, this is by no means an all exhaustive test. So,
> > it's possible that a bumpy road may lay ahead for some. On the other
> > hand...overflows (hopefully) previously lurked (long -> int conversion).
> >
> > This is my first submission. Please be kind if I submitted to the wrong
> > list. ;)
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Greg Copeland
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html