| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting rid of SQLValueFunction |
| Date: | 2022-10-25 05:20:12 |
| Message-ID: | Y1dyDMIs+wnv94DR@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 02:27:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have looked at that, and the attribute mapping remains compatible
> with past versions once the appropriate pg_proc entries are added.
> The updated patch set attached does that (with a user() function as
> well to keep the code a maximum simple), with more tests to cover the
> attribute case mentioned upthread.
Attached is a rebased patch set, as of the conflicts from 2e0d80c.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Remove-from-SQLValueFunction-all-the-entries-usin.patch | text/x-diff | 11.1 KB |
| v3-0002-Replace-SQLValueFunction-by-direct-function-calls.patch | text/x-diff | 38.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-25 05:37:25 | Some regression tests for the pg_control_*() functions |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-25 05:09:32 | Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables? |