> On 25 Jan 2018, at 16:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> One tiny thing: while not introduced in this patch, I wonder if it would be
>> worth adding an errhint in the following hunk when applied to arrays, to
>> clarify what CONSTANT in an array declaration mean. I have seen c
On Thursday, January 25, 2018, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The documentation currently says
>
> The CONSTANT option prevents the variable from being assigned to
> after initialization, so that its value will remain constant for
> the duration of the block.
>
While we don't really
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> I’ve reviewed this patch (disclaimer: I did not review the patches listed
> above
> which it is based on) and the functionality introduced. The code is straight-
> forward, there are ample tests and I can’t make it break however many weird
> combinations thrown at it.
> On 25 Jan 2018, at 00:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>> I said a couple of times in recent threads that it wouldn't be too hard
>> to implement $SUBJECT given the other patches I've been working on.
>
> Here's a version rebased up to HEAD, with a trivial merge conflict fixed.
>
> This now n
I wrote:
> I said a couple of times in recent threads that it wouldn't be too hard
> to implement $SUBJECT given the other patches I've been working on.
Here's a version rebased up to HEAD, with a trivial merge conflict fixed.
This now needs to be applied over the patches in
https://postgr.es/m/8
I said a couple of times in recent threads that it wouldn't be too hard
to implement $SUBJECT given the other patches I've been working on.
Attached is proof of the pudding. This needs to be applied on top of
the patches in
https://postgr.es/m/23537.1514589...@sss.pgh.pa.us
and
https://postgr.es/m
