Re: Identifying no-op length coercions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Identifying no-op length coercions
Date: 2011-06-19 02:57:13
Message-ID: BANLkTikQBH2HJ-9EnqqDEMbFOyM3Ly9dFw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> Sounds good.  Updated patch attached, incorporating your ideas.  Before applying
> it, run this command to update the uninvolved pg_proc.h DATA entries:
>  perl -pi -e 's/PGUID(\s+\d+){4}/$& 0/' src/include/catalog/pg_proc.h

This doesn't quite apply any more. I think the pgindent run broke it slightly.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-06-19 03:02:01 Re: crash-safe visibility map, take five
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-06-19 02:51:53 Re: [v9.2] DROP Reworks Part.0 - 'missing_ok' support of get_object_address