PostgreSQL › PostgreSQL - hackers

SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

27 messages Options

1 2

Peter Eisentraut-6

Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

On 2020-11-25 20:35, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I checked this patch, and I didn't find any issue.
>
> make check-world passed
> make doc passed
>
> I'll mark it as ready for committer

This has been committed. Thanks.

--
Peter Eisentraut
2ndQuadrant, an EDB company
https://www.2ndquadrant.com/

Pavel Stehule

Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

po 1. 2. 2021 v 19:02 odesílatel Peter Eisentraut < > napsal:

On 2020-11-25 20:35, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I checked this patch, and I didn't find any issue.
>
> make check-world passed
> make doc passed
>
> I'll mark it as ready for committer

This has been committed. Thanks.

great!

Pavel

--
Peter Eisentraut
2ndQuadrant, an EDB company
https://www.2ndquadrant.com/

Peter Eisentraut-6

Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

In reply to this post by Peter Eisentraut-6

On 22.05.20 14:32, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>> As an improvement over the spec, I think the vast majority of people
>> will be using simple true/false values. Can we make that optional?
>>
>> CYCLE f, t SET is_cycle USING path
>>
>> would be the same as
>>
>> CYCLE f, t SET is_cycle TO true DEFAULT false USING path
>
> I was also considering that. It would be an easy change to make.

This change has been accepted into the SQL:202x draft. Here is a patch
for it.

0001-Enhanced-cycle-mark-values.patch (21K) Download Attachment

Vik Fearing-6

Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

On 2/22/21 9:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> On 22.05.20 14:32, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> As an improvement over the spec, I think the vast majority of people
>>> will be using simple true/false values. Can we make that optional?
>>>
>>> CYCLE f, t SET is_cycle USING path
>>>
>>> would be the same as
>>>
>>> CYCLE f, t SET is_cycle TO true DEFAULT false USING path
>>
>> I was also considering that. It would be an easy change to make.
>
> This change has been accepted into the SQL:202x draft.

Yay!

> Here is a patch for it.

This looks good to me, except that you forgot to add the feature stamp.
Attached is a small diff to apply on top of your patch to fix that.
--
Vik Fearing

sql_features.diff (572 bytes) Download Attachment

Peter Eisentraut-6

Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

On 22.02.21 11:05, Vik Fearing wrote:
> This looks good to me, except that you forgot to add the feature stamp.
> Attached is a small diff to apply on top of your patch to fix that.

The feature code is from SQL:202x, whereas the table is relative to
SQL:2016. We could add it, but probably with a comment.

Vik Fearing-6

Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

On 2/22/21 1:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 22.02.21 11:05, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> This looks good to me, except that you forgot to add the feature stamp.
>> Attached is a small diff to apply on top of your patch to fix that.
>
> The feature code is from SQL:202x, whereas the table is relative to
> SQL:2016. We could add it, but probably with a comment.

OK.
--
Vik Fearing

Peter Eisentraut-6

Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

On 22.02.21 14:45, Vik Fearing wrote:

> On 2/22/21 1:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 22.02.21 11:05, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>> This looks good to me, except that you forgot to add the feature stamp.
>>> Attached is a small diff to apply on top of your patch to fix that.
>>
>> The feature code is from SQL:202x, whereas the table is relative to
>> SQL:2016. We could add it, but probably with a comment.
>
> OK.
>

done

1 2