Re: [BUGS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1Jk6UO=m806TQYUdQUaZd5_V9N6juEKseF_eAt5CFwnMg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max (Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Asif,
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Asif Naeem <anaeem.it@gmail.com> wrote:> > Hi Haribabu,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing the patch. I have spent some time to review the
> > changes. Overall patch looks good to me, make check and manual testing seems
> > run fine with it. There seems no related doc/sgml changes ?. Patch added
> > network_smaller() and network_greater() functions but in PG source code,
> > general practice seems to be to use “smaller" and “larger” as related
> > function name postfix e.g. timestamp_smaller()/timestamp_larger(),
> > interval_smaller/interval_larger(), cashsmaller()/cashlarger() etc. Thanks.
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>
> I corrected the function names as smaller and larger.
> and also added documentation changes.
>
> Updated patch attached in the mail.
Hari has provided an updated patch as per your comments, if
you think patch is fine, could you please move it to Ready For Committer?
Incase your review is still pending, then it is okay. I have asked
as from your mail it seems to me that the new patch addresses all
your concerns.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: