On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 15:36 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 17:23 +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> > Dear Robert,
> >
> > I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my
> > rule rewriting strategy of MERGE actions.
> >
> > In my current design, if we find tha
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 17:23 +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my
> rule rewriting strategy of MERGE actions.
>
> In my current design, if we find that an action type, say UPDATE, is
> replaced by INSTEAD rules, we wil
On Wednesday 04 August 2010 14:09:51 Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Yep. I believe Boxuan is using git in a simplistic way, doing just "git
> diff" to create patches. For adding new files, you need to do "git add
> ", but note that this adds the new file to "staging area". To
> view all changes in
On 04/08/10 12:23, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my rule
rewriting strategy of MERGE actions.
In my current design, if we find that an action type, say UPDATE, is
replaced by INSTEAD rules, we will remove all the actions of this type from
th
Dear Robert,
I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my rule
rewriting strategy of MERGE actions.
In my current design, if we find that an action type, say UPDATE, is
replaced by INSTEAD rules, we will remove all the actions of this type from
the MERGE command, as if th
2010/8/4 Greg Smith
> Boxuan Zhai wrote:
>
>> I think there are no redundant lines in this time's patch file.
>>
>
> It is much better. There are still more blank likes around the new code
> you've added than are needed in many places, but that doesn't interfere with
> reading the patch.
>
> Sor
Boxuan Zhai wrote:
I think there are no redundant lines in this time's patch file.
It is much better. There are still more blank likes around the new code
you've added than are needed in many places, but that doesn't interfere
with reading the patch.
The main code formatting issue left you
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 03:14:02PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > And, I have tested the running of MERGE command with different
> > situations. I am sorry that I didn't create regression test files,
> > because I am not sure how to add new files in the git package.
> > But, I have written web pa
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Implementation_detalis
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Test_examples
These pages were confusingly named, so I just moved them:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MergeTestExamples
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MergeImplementationDetails
--
> And, I have tested the running of MERGE command with different
> situations. I am sorry that I didn't create regression test files,
> because I am not sure how to add new files in the git package. But, I
> have written web pages in Postgres Wiki. I explain the details of my
> implementation and
2010/7/31 Greg Smith
> Boxuan Zhai wrote:
>
>> I create a clean patch file (no debug clauses). See the attachment.
>>
>
> Some general coding feedback for you on this.
>
> Thanks for your consideration!
> It's not obvious to people who might want to try this out what exactly they
> are supposed
On Friday 30 July 2010 18:21:49 Greg Smith wrote:
> -break;
> +break;
>
> This happened because you added two invisible tabs to the end of this
> line. This makes the patch larger for no good reason and tends to
If you want to remove changes like this using:
"git
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> If you had those done for this patch, I
> wouldn't have to ask for code examples; I could just look at the source to
> the regression output and see how to use it against the standard database
> the regression samples create, and then execute a
Boxuan Zhai wrote:
I create a clean patch file (no debug clauses). See the attachment.
Some general coding feedback for you on this.
It's not obvious to people who might want to try this out what exactly
they are supposed to do. Particularly for complicated patches like
this, where only a s
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> I have fixed the action qual problem. Now the system can run merge command,
> with quals.
>
> I create a clean patch file (no debug clauses). See the attachment.
>
> Please try this new command if you have interest.
So, I tried this today, bu
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
>> > I have get a edition that the merge command can run. It accept the
>> > standard
>> > merge command and can do UPDATE, INSERT and DELETE actions now. But we
>> > cannot put additional q
2010/7/28 Robert Haas
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> > I have get a edition that the merge command can run. It accept the
> standard
> > merge command and can do UPDATE, INSERT and DELETE actions now. But we
> > cannot put additional qualification for actions. There are
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> I have get a edition that the merge command can run. It accept the standard
> merge command and can do UPDATE, INSERT and DELETE actions now. But we
> cannot put additional qualification for actions. There are some bugs when we
> try to evaluat
18 matches
Mail list logo
