On 2/28/18 17:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/28/18 15:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have reviewed this patch and attach an updated version below.
>> I've rebased it up to today, fixed a few minor errors, and adopted
>> most of Michael's suggestions. Also, since I remain desperately
>> unhappy with
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 05:37:11PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/28/18 15:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have reviewed this patch and attach an updated version below.
>> I've rebased it up to today, fixed a few minor errors, and adopted
>> most of Michael's suggestions. Also, since I remain desp
On 2/28/18 15:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> I have reviewed this patch and attach an updated version below.
> I've rebased it up to today, fixed a few minor errors, and adopted
> most of Michael's suggestions. Also, since I remain desperately
> unhappy with putting zeroes into prorettype, I changed it to
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:50:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> We support the various psql/describe.c features against old servers,
> so it would be quite inconsistent for tab completion not to work
> similarly. There are some gaps in that already, as per the other
> thread, but we should clean those
Catalin Iacob writes:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:03 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I would just recommend users to use a version of psql matching
>> the one of the server instead of putting an extra load of maintenance
>> into psql for years to come
> Breaking tab completion in new psql against
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:03 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I would just recommend users to use a version of psql matching
> the one of the server instead of putting an extra load of maintenance
> into psql for years to come
Breaking tab completion in new psql against old servers might be
acceptabl
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 02:03:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure that other patch will get in; AFAICS it's incomplete and
> rather controversial. But I guess we could put this issue on the
> open-items list so we don't forget.
+1. We already know that we want to do a switch to prokind an
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 2/24/18 14:08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I took a quick look through this and noted a few small problems; the
>> only one worth mentioning here is that you've broken psql tab completion
>> for functions and aggregates when talking to a pre-v11 server.
>> I don't think that's
On 2/24/18 14:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> I took a quick look through this and noted a few small problems; the
> only one worth mentioning here is that you've broken psql tab completion
> for functions and aggregates when talking to a pre-v11 server.
> I don't think that's acceptable; however, since tab-
On 2/25/18, Tom Lane wrote:
> We need a plan for when/how to apply this, along with the proposed
> bootstrap data conversion patch, which obviously conflicts with it
> significantly.
The bulk changes in the bootstrap data patch are scripted rather than
patched, so the prokind patch will pose litt
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Here is this patch updated. The client changes are now complete and all
> the tests pass. I have also rolled back the places where the code used
> prorettype to detect procedures and replaced this by the new facility.
I took a quick look through this and noted a few s
11 matches
Mail list logo
