Tom Lane:
> In fact the patch seemed quite incomplete to me; adding a new parsenode
> type requires much more than just a struct declaration.
btw, it's not correct, that just a new structure has been declared. I added
the T_Default to the Type-Enum and it seems to me, my new parsenode type has
been full-automatically integrated in the parser-workflow. In the gram.y,
there is a new set of rules describing the DEFAULT value in the INSERT
stmt - this is the place, where it's being identified and node-ed (using
it's type), the transformation has got the new T_Default-case leaving this
node "as is", and it's being transformed (replaced by the default value
taken from the relation specified by the corresponding parsestate-field)
later.
> But this isn't
> the right time of the cycle to be reviewing new-feature patches.
ok, but I hope you've got a 3%-free--ear-capacity at least to answer some of
my questions (having a very bad timing ,-) ). I don't ask offen and about
every step, but sometimes it breaks through...
>
> BTW, patches should usually be sent to pgsql-patches not pgsql-hackers.
...where they will get dusty before the new release has been finished... ,)
no problem, I'll wait a little with my patches but not with my questions ,)
sorry if I increased your current stress level :-)
rgds
Pavlo Baron