From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches |
Date: | 2011-07-31 01:25:58 |
Message-ID: | 4E34AF26.1050306@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/06/2011 08:26 PM, Brar Piening wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches
> From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
> To: Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de>
> Date: 06.07.2011 22:58
>
>>> I'll remove my versions from the patch (v9 probably) if those files
>>> get commited.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm just doing some final testing and preparing to commit the new
>> pgflex and pgbison.
>
>
> The attached patch includes documentation changes and excludes my
> versions of pgbison.pl and pgflex.pl which have been replaced by
> Andrews' versions that are already commited.
>
> As before "perltidy_before.patch" has to be applied first and
> "VS2010v9.patch" second.
>
>
I just started looking at this a bit. One small question: why are we
using "use base qw(foo);" instead of "use parent qw(foo);" which I
understand is preferred these days?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-31 01:46:05 | Re: pgbench internal contention |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2011-07-30 22:40:46 | Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints |