From: | Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | is_array_type vs type_is_array |
Date: | 2007-06-07 05:08:21 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.64.0706062203100.8025@resin.csoft.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Was there some change in functionality reason for renaming is_array_type
to type_is_array? It broke compilation of fulldisjunctions, which I build
and run regression tests on in my sandbox to keep it getting too horribly
broken with respect to current HEAD. I got it to build and pass its
regression tests by adding this:
+ #if !defined(is_array_type) && defined(type_is_array)
+ #define is_array_type(x) type_is_array(x)
+ #endif
to the beginning of the one file which uses is_array_type. Is this
reasonable to send back to the fulldisjunctions maintainer, or is there
some subtle change that prompted the name change to make uses of this
function immediately apparent?
--
Ducharme's Axiom:
If you view your problem closely enough you will recognize
yourself as part of the problem.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-07 05:44:43 | Re: is_array_type vs type_is_array |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-06-07 04:47:30 | Re: To all the pgsql developers..Have a look at the operators proposed by me in my researc |