On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, short of seeing an acceptable patch for the larger thing, I don't
> want to accept a patch to add that field to Const, because I think it's
> a kluge. I'm still feeling that there must be a better way ...
Hm. Maybe it is tractable to to fi
On 16 January 2012 23:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, short of seeing an acceptable patch for the larger thing, I don't
> want to accept a patch to add that field to Const, because I think it's
> a kluge. I'm still feeling that there must be a better way ...
What does an acceptable patch look like?
On 16 January 2012 23:43, Greg Smith wrote:
> While Peter had a version of this that worked completely within the
> boundaries of an extension, no one was really happy with that. At a minimum
> the .length changes really need to land in 9.2 to enable this feature to
> work well. As Daniel noted,
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of dom ene 15 08:41:55 -0300 2012:
>> Onto the mechanism: the patch is both a contrib and changes to
>> Postgres. The changes to postgres are mechanical in nature, but
>> voluminous. The key change is to not only remember the positio
On 01/16/2012 06:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I wonder if it would make sense to split out those changes from the
patch, including a one-member struct definition to the lexer source,
which could presumably be applied in advance of the rest of the patch.
That way, if other parts of the main patch
Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of dom ene 15 08:41:55 -0300 2012:
> Onto the mechanism: the patch is both a contrib and changes to
> Postgres. The changes to postgres are mechanical in nature, but
> voluminous. The key change is to not only remember the position of
> Const nodes in the q
On 15 January 2012 11:41, Daniel Farina wrote:
> I've *finally* gotten around to reviewing this patch.
>
> My first step was to de-bitrot it very slightly. More on that in a moment.
Thanks.
> Prepared statements are less informative, unless one knows their
> naming convention:
>
> query
I've *finally* gotten around to reviewing this patch.
My first step was to de-bitrot it very slightly. More on that in a moment.
After that, I tried using it. Installation worked nicely -- I did
CREATE EXTENSION and then tried reading from pg_stat_statements. I
was then given an error message
