| From: | ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Tab complete EXECUTE FUNCTION for CREATE (EVENT) TRIGGER |
| Date: | 2018-10-26 10:15:19 |
| Message-ID: | d8jin1pnhe0.fsf@dalvik.ping.uio.no |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 09:31:48AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Committed 0001 now which adds tab completion for CREATE TRIGGER.
>
>> And 0002 is committed as well. Thanks for the patches!
Thanks for reviewing and committing!
> The committed patches look sane to me, but should we back-patch into 11?
> This isn't quite a bug fix maybe, but it's inconsistent if v11 server &
> docs recommend this syntax while v11 psql doesn't produce it.
I was going to suggest backpatching it, as I consider it a bug in the
original implementation, if not critical. Making it harder for people
to use the recommended syntax than the deprecated one is not nice.
> regards, tom lane
- ilmari
--
"The surreality of the universe tends towards a maximum" -- Skud's Law
"Never formulate a law or axiom that you're not prepared to live with
the consequences of." -- Skud's Meta-Law
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-26 10:20:13 | Re: Should pg 11 use a lot more memory building an spgist index? |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-10-26 10:08:44 | Re: Should pg 11 use a lot more memory building an spgist index? |