Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > I see what it is doing, but it seems quite unclear. Seeing that people
> > are using this as a pattern for other param processing, I will work on a
> > patch to convert this to DefElem.
>
> Wouldn't a few macros clean this up better (ie, make it clearer)?
>
> #define CDB
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The code that bothered me about the CREATE DATABASE param processing
> was:
>
> /* process additional options */
> foreach(l, $5)
> {
> List *optitem = (List *) lfirst(l);
>
> switch (lfirsti(optitem))
> {
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh, I think we were talking at cross-purposes then. What you're really
> unhappy about is that this uses a list of two-element sublists? Yeah,
> I agree, that's a messy data structure; a list of DefElem would be
> perhaps cleaner. Not sure if it matters all that much though, s
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The code that bothered me about the CREATE DATABASE param processing
> was:
> /* process additional options */
> foreach(l, $5)
> {
> List *optitem = (List *) lfirst(l);
> switch (lfirsti(optitem))
> {
> ca
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Gavin Sherry wrote:
> >> CREATE DATABASE also fills out a list in the same fashion =). I will
> >> however have a look at revising this patch to use DefElem later today.
>
> > Oh, I see that now. Which method do people prefer. We s
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gavin Sherry wrote:
>> CREATE DATABASE also fills out a list in the same fashion =). I will
>> however have a look at revising this patch to use DefElem later today.
> Oh, I see that now. Which method do people prefer. We should probably
> make them a
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > Gavin, I see where you are going with the patch; creating a list in
> > gram.y and stuffing CopyStmt directly there. However, I can't find any
> > other instance of our stuffing things like that in gram.y. We do have
>
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Gavin, I see where you are going with the patch; creating a list in
> gram.y and stuffing CopyStmt directly there. However, I can't find any
> other instance of our stuffing things like that in gram.y. We do have
> cases using options like COPY in
Gavin, I see where you are going with the patch; creating a list in
gram.y and stuffing CopyStmt directly there. However, I can't find any
other instance of our stuffing things like that in gram.y. We do have
cases using options like COPY in CREATE USER, and we do use DefElem.
I realize it wi
Gavin Sherry writes:
> The patch attached maintains backward compatibility. The syntax is as
> follows:
>
> COPY [BINARY] [WITH OIDS] FROM/TO
> [USING DELIMITERS ]
> [WITH [ DELIMITER | NULL AS | OIDS ]]
I think we should lose the WITH altogether. It's not any bet
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Gavin, I will do the legwork on this if you wish. I think we need to
No matter. I intended to submit a patch to fix this.
> use DefElem to store the COPY params, rather than using specific fields
> in CopyStmt.
DefElem would have required modific
Gavin, I will do the legwork on this if you wish. I think we need to
use DefElem to store the COPY params, rather than using specific fields
in CopyStmt.
Would you send me your original patch so I am make sure I hit
everything. I can't seem to find a copy. If you would like to work on
it, I c
12 matches
Mail list logo
