Re: Small fix for _equalValue()

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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()

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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()