| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark deprecated operators as such in their comments? |
| Date: | 2011-03-07 16:45:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1299516143-sup-9390@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Greg Stark's message of jue mar 03 13:02:53 -0300 2011:
> But I'm not sure it's worth bothering. Filling in the description
> field is hardly the most annoying part of adding pg_proc entries for
> operators. If we could move most or all of the entries to an SQL file
> so that we didn't have to deal with commutator and negator oids and
> all that, that would save a lot of pain.
You seem to want to have a completely new way to describe contents of
pg_proc.h and pg_operator.h, from which the DATA and DESCR lines could
be generated. Perhaps that's a worthy goal, not sure. I'm not sure it
can be done with SQL though.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-07 16:55:42 | Re: Mark deprecated operators as such in their comments? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-07 16:43:20 | Theory of operation of collation patch |