| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems? |
| Date: | 2003-10-22 01:27:39 |
| Message-ID: | 3F95DD0B.5080603@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>>*sigh* - it's really not my day today. Attached is patch that actually
>>compiles and fixes the problem. We will need to bump CATVERSION, and
>>maybe should test all the other qualified functions?
>
> I think you've identified a real issue, but how many of these modified
> functions did you actually test? I thought SUBSTRING was a reserved
> word, for example ...
Well, some... I did run the regression tests and they passed, but I
assumed that they would call all of the functions.
OK, I will test them all today and get back to you.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-10-22 01:32:55 | Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not? |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-10-22 01:25:34 | Re: multi-backend psql |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-10-22 01:34:51 | Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-21 16:27:45 | Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems? |