Re: Ticket 269: Add support for 9.1 ALTER TYPE new syntax for enum
От | Guillaume Lelarge |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Ticket 269: Add support for 9.1 ALTER TYPE new syntax for enum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4CD01DB0.1000601@lelarge.info обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Ticket 269: Add support for 9.1 ALTER TYPE new syntax for enum (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Ticket 269: Add support for 9.1 ALTER TYPE
new syntax for enum
|
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
Le 02/11/2010 05:49, Dave Page a écrit : > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Guillaume Lelarge > <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >> Le 31/10/2010 09:44, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : >>> Le 31/10/2010 00:39, Dave Page a écrit : >>>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Guillaume Lelarge >>>> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >>>>> Le 30/10/2010 10:25, Dave Page a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, that's really nasty. I guess we need split the commands at ;. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah. If it's not between quotes. I don't like it at all, but I don't >>>>> see another way of doing it. >>>>> >>>>>> I guess we should pass a flag down somehow to tell the function that >>>>>> executes the query to do that and then we could also potentially get >>>>>> rid of the double SQL boxes. I'm not looking at the code, but I >>>>>> suspect that'll be nasty. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We actually aren't required to add such a flag. We can check if the >>>>> query contains "ALTER TYPE", and "ADD AFTER" or "ADD BEFORE". >>>> >>>> That's knowledge I'd rather avoid hardwiring into the lower level >>>> machinery here. >>>> >>> >>> So do I. I tried a few things yesterday. Changing the apply() and >>> GetSql() parameters imply to change all GetSql for all dlg* source code. >>> That will be quite an invasive patch. >>> >> >> I've done the "split-the-queries" function. Seems to work great, but >> still doesn't cover dollar quoting. Anyway, it's less ugly than I >> thought. The interesting part is dlgProperty::SplitQueries(). Would love >> to get comments :) > > I just eyeballed the patch - if I'm reading it right, it splits *all* > queries and executes each part individually. Is that correct? > Right. > If so, we're going to need that flag. Most of the time, we want all > the query parts to be executed atomically, otherwise if we get and > error (particularly when using the Apply button where there is one), > the dialogue won't know what parts of the update work and what didn't, > and thus will have a difficult job refreshing the display > appropriately. > Yeah, that was the part I wanted to work on yesterday. I have an idea on this, I actually have the code, but it doesn't work :-/ Need some more work. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: