| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |
| Date: | 2003-06-01 16:19:58 |
| Message-ID: | 3EDA27AE.6080504@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I think we could get away with that. It might be appropriate to
> put that single special case into IsBinaryCoercible, instead of allowing
> it only for the compatible_oper case. I can't recall offhand what else
> uses IsBinaryCoercible ...
>
OK -- here is that version. Certainly simplifies it, and seems
appropriate given the comments in IsBinaryCoercible.
Next question: should I roll the three array related patches floating
around (phase2, phase3, polycoerce) into one big patch again? It's
difficult for me to continue to make progress without doing that.
Joe
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| array-polycoerce.3.patch | text/plain | 780 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-01 16:27:02 | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |
| Previous Message | Darko Prenosil | 2003-06-01 16:18:38 | Re: Start-scripts linux |