Thread: dlgOperator_patch
Hi Andreas. See it, and put it though it hasn't been completed. A problem is still left. It takes a break because it got tired a little.:-) Regards, Hiroshi Saito
Attachment
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Saito [mailto:saito@inetrt.skcapi.co.jp] > Sent: 09 September 2003 19:20 > To: Andreas Pflug > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org; Dave Page > Subject: dlgOperator_patch > > > Hi Andreas. > > See it, and put it though it hasn't been completed. > A problem is still left. > It takes a break because it got tired a little.:-) Hi Hiroshi, I have applied your patch, and also made some more updates to populate the rest of the combo boxes. I think I got it all, though I couldn't see where the 'supports merge' chkbox was supposed to be populated from. This is one that is not in pga2 - any ideas? Regards, Dave.
Hi Dave. From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> (snip) > > > > See it, and put it though it hasn't been completed. > > A problem is still left. > > It takes a break because it got tired a little.:-) > > Hi Hiroshi, > > I have applied your patch, and also made some more updates to populate > the rest of the combo boxes. I think I got it all, though I couldn't see > where the 'supports merge' chkbox was supposed to be populated from. Thanks.! > This is one that is not in pga2 - any ideas? MERGES is specified tacitly. Default name in the preparation is put. I don't think that it is a problem that it doesn't have chkbox. However, are LTCMP, GTCMP necessary? Regards, Hiroshi Saito
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Saito [mailto:saito@inetrt.skcapi.co.jp] > Sent: 10 September 2003 03:24 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] dlgOperator_patch > > > > This is one that is not in pga2 - any ideas? > > MERGES is specified tacitly. > Default name in the preparation is put. > I don't think that it is a problem that it doesn't have > chkbox. I think it has as much right to be there as HASHES, however whilst there is a oprcanhash column in pg_operator, there is no oprcanmerge column. So what defines a mergeable operator? > However, are LTCMP, GTCMP necessary? Yes, I think so. You can specify them when you create an operator (they are shown as < operator and > operator btw.). Regards, Dave.
Hi Dave. This is patch of pga3. Please Apply it. pga2 is thought to want to adjust it tonight. Regards, Hiroshi Saito From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> > > This is one that is not in pga2 - any ideas? > > MERGES is specified tacitly. > Default name in the preparation is put. > I don't think that it is a problem that it doesn't have > chkbox. I think it has as much right to be there as HASHES, however whilst there is a oprcanhash column in pg_operator, there is no oprcanmerge column. So what defines a mergeable operator? > However, are LTCMP, GTCMP necessary? Yes, I think so. You can specify them when you create an operator (they are shown as < operator and > operator btw.). Regards, Dave.
Attachment
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Saito [mailto:saito@inetrt.skcapi.co.jp] > Sent: 11 September 2003 07:47 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] dlgOperator_patch > > > Hi Dave. > > This is patch of pga3. > Please Apply it. Thanks, patch applied. Regards, Dave.