From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Small fix for _equalValue() |
Date: | 2002-03-07 16:50:09 |
Message-ID: | 3C879A41.C16B564C@fourpalms.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> > If this should be done differently I'm happy for suggestions...
> I think DEFAULT should probably be represented by a NULL, not by
> a Value node containing a null string pointer.
> I'm willing to do the work if no one else feels strongly about it ;-)
OK. I can't think of a case where we would want to represent multiple
DEFAULT placeholders in the context of SET.
Or if we are going to pick up on the recent proposal to allow
column-specific DEFAULT values perhaps we should use a common
representation for the solution here?
In either case, I won't feel stepped on if you implement the solution,
but I can do so if desired.
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-03-07 16:51:14 | Re: Current cvs source regression: create_function_1.out |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-07 16:39:02 | Re: Small fix for _equalValue() |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-07 16:55:48 | Re: Small fix for _equalValue() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-07 16:39:02 | Re: Small fix for _equalValue() |