Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
Date: 2021-06-19 04:49:07
Message-ID: 20210619044907.pnwm5qdre5xctya2@nol
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 10:24:20AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Maybe "if true, pstmt's node tree must not be modified" ?
>
> > Thanks, I find it way better!
>
> OK, pushed that way, and with a couple other comment tweaks from
> an additional re-reading.

Thanks! For the record I already pushed the required compatibility changes for
hypopg extension.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2021-06-19 04:55:41 Re: Failures with gcd functions with GCC snapshots GCC and -O3 (?)
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-06-19 03:47:21 Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft