| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
| Date: | 2017-01-31 17:16:51 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=c8M9LDBdvijq=yXrS4ar2KLoq7uoYs0JQFmh0d3w2hmg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>
> This is code lifted from variable.c's ParseVariableBool(). When the other
>>> patch for "psql hooks" is committed (the one that detects when the string
>>> wasn't a valid boolean), this code will go away and we'll just use
>>> ParseVariableBool() again.
>>>
>>
> The ParseVariableBool function has been updated, and the new version is
> much cleaner, including all fixes that I suggested in your copy, so you can
> use it in your patch.
>
> --
> Fabien.
>
I see there's still a lot of activity in the thread, I can't tell if it's
directly related to ParseVariableBool() or in the way it is called. Should
I wait for the dust to settle over there?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2017-01-31 17:24:31 | Re: COPY as a set returning function |
| Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2017-01-31 17:12:03 | Re: Improvements in psql hooks for variables |