Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka SRFs)

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Again, a patch is attached that clearly needs fixing. I should have
> > tested this more, but I am heading out now and wanted to get it in
> > before more code drifted.
>
> Would you mind backing it out, instead? I've got major merge problems
> now because I wasn't expecting that to be applied yet (it's still
> completely unreviewed AFAIK).

I can back it out, but it may cause the same problems when I try to
apply it later. It was submitted July 28, added to the patch queue
August 1, and applied today, August 4. I don't remember anyone saying
they wanted to review it. It is an extension to an earlier patch.

If we back it out and delay it more, won't the patch become even harder
to apply? Let me know. (It was actually your DROP COLUMN commit that
made it hard to apply yesterday.)

One trick I use for patch problems is this: If a patch doesn't apply,
and it is too hard to manually merge, I generate a diff via CVS of the
last change to the file, save it, reverse out that diff, then apply the
rejected part of the new patch, _then_ apply the CVS diff I generated.
In many cases, the rejections of that last CVS patch _will_ be able to
be manually applied, i.e. if a patch changes 100 lines, but a previous
patch changed 3 lines, you can back out the 3-line change, apply the
100-line change, then manually patch in the 3-line change based on the
new contents of the file.

Let me know what you want me to do.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026