Doc: sync CREATE GROUP syntax synopsis with CREATE ROLE.
CREATE GROUP is an exact alias for CREATE ROLE, and CREATE USER is
almost an exact alias, as can easily be confirmed by checking the
code. So the man page syntax descriptions ought to match up. The
last few additions of role options seem t
Doc: sync CREATE GROUP syntax synopsis with CREATE ROLE.
CREATE GROUP is an exact alias for CREATE ROLE, and CREATE USER is
almost an exact alias, as can easily be confirmed by checking the
code. So the man page syntax descriptions ought to match up. The
last few additions of role options seem t
Doc: sync CREATE GROUP syntax synopsis with CREATE ROLE.
CREATE GROUP is an exact alias for CREATE ROLE, and CREATE USER is
almost an exact alias, as can easily be confirmed by checking the
code. So the man page syntax descriptions ought to match up. The
last few additions of role options seem t
Doc: sync CREATE GROUP syntax synopsis with CREATE ROLE.
CREATE GROUP is an exact alias for CREATE ROLE, and CREATE USER is
almost an exact alias, as can easily be confirmed by checking the
code. So the man page syntax descriptions ought to match up. The
last few additions of role options seem t
Doc: sync CREATE GROUP syntax synopsis with CREATE ROLE.
CREATE GROUP is an exact alias for CREATE ROLE, and CREATE USER is
almost an exact alias, as can easily be confirmed by checking the
code. So the man page syntax descriptions ought to match up. The
last few additions of role options seem t
Doc: sync CREATE GROUP syntax synopsis with CREATE ROLE.
CREATE GROUP is an exact alias for CREATE ROLE, and CREATE USER is
almost an exact alias, as can easily be confirmed by checking the
code. So the man page syntax descriptions ought to match up. The
last few additions of role options seem t
On 2020-Apr-10, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > Yeah. We have at least four different buildfarm members complaining
> > about this test case. I took this patch and further lobotomized the
> > tests by removing *all* dependencies on restart_lsn and
> > pg_current_wal_lsn(). If anybody wants to put
Bruce Momjian writes:
> doc: add examples of creative use of unique expression indexes
> https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/a9760d0f3cb523336b5fdd9d6c5985e39a8588a1
We had a complaint [1] that this dropped an example into the middle of
two related paragraphs. I agree with that objection,
Suppress unused-variable warning.
Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAG-ACPWPB8Lc_aFj25eiPFqi31YB5vmaZnb39mbHSf5Yej=m...@mail.gmail.com
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/401418ca6a689f772cbfa1aedc7485cbbcde7a94
Modified Files
--
Doc: clarify locking requirements for ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY.
The docs explained that a SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock is needed on the
referenced table, but failed to say the same about the table being
altered. Since the page says that ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is taken
unless otherwise stated, this
Doc: clarify locking requirements for ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY.
The docs explained that a SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock is needed on the
referenced table, but failed to say the same about the table being
altered. Since the page says that ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is taken
unless otherwise stated, this
Doc: clarify locking requirements for ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY.
The docs explained that a SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock is needed on the
referenced table, but failed to say the same about the table being
altered. Since the page says that ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is taken
unless otherwise stated, this
Doc: clarify locking requirements for ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY.
The docs explained that a SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock is needed on the
referenced table, but failed to say the same about the table being
altered. Since the page says that ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is taken
unless otherwise stated, this
Doc: clarify locking requirements for ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY.
The docs explained that a SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock is needed on the
referenced table, but failed to say the same about the table being
altered. Since the page says that ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is taken
unless otherwise stated, this
Doc: clarify locking requirements for ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY.
The docs explained that a SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock is needed on the
referenced table, but failed to say the same about the table being
altered. Since the page says that ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is taken
unless otherwise stated, this
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:30:34AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > doc: add examples of creative use of unique expression indexes
> > https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/a9760d0f3cb523336b5fdd9d6c5985e39a8588a1
>
> We had a complaint [1] that this dropped an example into
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I agree with your analysis. I still want to have some mention that
> partial indexes can be used to create single-NULL columns, which might
> be required for compatibility with other databases. Attached is an
> updated patch which removes the previous commit but adds a me
Add contrib/amcheck debug message.
Add a DEBUG1 message indicating that verification of the index structure
is underway. Also reduce the severity level of the existing "tree
level" debug message to DEBUG1. It should never have been made DEBUG2.
Any B-Tree index with more than a couple of levels
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 07:21:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I agree with your analysis. I still want to have some mention that
> > partial indexes can be used to create single-NULL columns, which might
> > be required for compatibility with other databases. Attached is
19 matches
Mail list logo
