On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 20:49, Troels Arvin wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:35:52 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > I think you should just submit incremental patches for the relevant
> > files.
>
> My best shot is still
> http://troels.arvin.dk/db/pgsql/conformance/pgsql-sql-conformance.patch
>
> There are a number of features which are currently set to conformance=no
> but which might actually be implemented. That list hasn't changed from
> this post: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2004-10/msg00050.php
>
> > But if you wait much longer
> [...]
>
> I agree that it's getting late. I'm behind on every project that I'm
> involved in, and will probably not time to work more on this :-(
>
> Simon/Elein: Do you plan to put more work into this?
>
> If noone has the time to look over those
> probably-not-conforming-but-just-maybe features, I suggest that we just go
> along with the above patch.
I've re-written the starting paragraphs, will post soon.
That doesnt conflict with your patch - which look like good detail.
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
