| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neel Patel <neel(dot)patel(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dave(dot)page(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized View Patch File |
| Date: | 2013-07-02 14:25:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAA-aLv4N9fnU9cv9kr8Z=bnuW7PHTwii6u+GiBj2Lk3ghqqA2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
On 29 May 2013 10:40, Neel Patel <neel(dot)patel(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Please find the updated patch after fixing some of the issues and comments
> given by Ashesh.
Just realised this reply has been in my draft folder for over a month...
This comment appears to be incomplete:
//While editing the view, if it is materialized view then only change
The section of if... else if... else if... that begins with:
if (name == wxT("autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay"))
should probably use:
switch(name)
{
case wxT("autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay")
case ...
}
Given the amount of duplicate functionality this shares with tables,
is there not a way there could be a common class they could both
inherit from to reduce maintenance overhead?
--
Thom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2013-07-02 14:36:14 | Re: Materialized View Patch File |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2013-07-02 14:20:51 | Re: Materialized View Patch File |