On 3/3/21 10:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I had the same problem as Dian of the func.sgml hunk winding up in
> the wrong place. I think this is practically inevitable unless the
> submitter uses more than 3 lines of context for the diff, because
> otherwise the context is just boilerplate that look
Vik Fearing writes:
> On 3/2/21 1:02 AM, Dian M Fay wrote:
>> I'd thought that checking v and returning null instead of raising the
>> error would be more friendly, should it be possible to pass an untyped
>> null accidentally instead of on purpose, and I couldn't rule that out.
> As Tom said, th
On 3/2/21 1:02 AM, Dian M Fay wrote:
> On Mon Mar 1, 2021 at 6:53 PM EST, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>> This basically does what it says, and the code looks good. The
>>> documentation is out of alphabetical order (trim_array should appear
>>> under cardinality rather than over)) but good otherwise.
>>
>>
On Mon Mar 1, 2021 at 6:53 PM EST, Vik Fearing wrote:
> > This basically does what it says, and the code looks good. The
> > documentation is out of alphabetical order (trim_array should appear
> > under cardinality rather than over)) but good otherwise.
>
> Hmm. It appears between cardinality and
Dian Fay writes:
> This basically does what it says, and the code looks good. The
> documentation is out of alphabetical order (trim_array should appear
> under cardinality rather than over)) but good otherwise. I was able to
> "break" the function with an untyped null in psql:
> select trim_arra
On 3/2/21 12:14 AM, Dian Fay wrote:
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world: tested, passed
> Implements feature: tested, passed
> Spec compliant: tested, failed
> Documentation:tested, failed
Thank you for l
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, failed
Documentation:tested, failed
This basically does what it says, and the code looks good. Th
On 2/17/21 1:25 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> I've made a bit of a mess out of this, but I partly blame the standard
> which is very unclear. It actually describes trimming the right n
> elements instead of the left n like I've done here. I'll be back later
> with a better patch that does what it's a
On 2/16/21 11:38 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 2/16/21 7:32 PM, Isaac Morland wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 12:54, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>
>>> The SQL standard defines a function called TRIM_ARRAY that surprisingly
>>> has syntax that looks like a function! So I implemented it using a thin
>>> wra
On 2/16/21 7:32 PM, Isaac Morland wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 12:54, Vik Fearing wrote:
>
>> The SQL standard defines a function called TRIM_ARRAY that surprisingly
>> has syntax that looks like a function! So I implemented it using a thin
>> wrapper around our array slice syntax. It is lit
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 12:54, Vik Fearing wrote:
> The SQL standard defines a function called TRIM_ARRAY that surprisingly
> has syntax that looks like a function! So I implemented it using a thin
> wrapper around our array slice syntax. It is literally just ($1)[1:$2].
>
> An interesting case
11 matches
Mail list logo
