I took my first stab at hacking the sources to fix the bug reported here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-01/msg00152.php
It's such a simple patch but it took me several hours with Google and IRC
and I'm sure I did many things wrong. It seems to work as advertised,
though, so I'm
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 17:58, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > This looks reasonable to me, except that possibly the new error message
> > text could do with a bit more thought. It seems randomly unlike the
> > normal message, and I also have a bit of
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 18:47, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, committed with that further change.
Thank you, Robert! My first real contribution, even if tiny :-)
Just a small nit to pick, though: Giuseppe Sucameli contributed to this
patch but was not credited in the commit log.
I decided to take a crack at the todo item created from the following post:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-10/msg00458.php
The attached patch makes the desired changes in both code and function
naming.
It seemed quite easy to do but wasn't marked as easy on the todo, so I'm
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 15:25, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Vik Reykja wrote:
> > I decided to take a crack at the todo item created from the following
> post:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-10/msg00458.php
> >
> >
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:02, Chetan Suttraway <
chetan.suttra...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> The patch was not getting applied. Was seeing below message:
> postgresql$ git apply /Downloads/unchanged.patch
> error: src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c: already exists in working
> directory
>
> Hav
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 21:04, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > One immediate consequence of deciding that we are lead maintainers and
> > not just consumers is that we should put in some regression tests,
> > instead of taking the attitude that the Tcl
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 04:33, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah, it's conceivable that we could implement something whereby
> >> characters with codes above some cutoff point are handled via runtime
> >> calls to iswalpha() and friends, rather than
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 05:03, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Vik Reykja wrote:
> > Does it make sense for regexps to have collations?
>
> As I understand it, collations determine the sort-ordering of strings.
> Regular expressions don't care abou
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 19:44, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> One of the problems that Florian was trying to address is that
> people often have a need to enforce something with a lot of
> similarity to a foreign key, but with more subtle logic than
> declarative foreign keys support. One example would
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 21:16, Vik Reykja wrote:
> I would be willing to have a go at translating test cases. I do not (yet)
> have the C knowledge to maintain the regex code, though.
I got suddenly swamped and forgot I had signed up for this. I'm still
pretty swamped and I would
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I fail to see the point of DEALLOCATE IF EXISTS. Do you have real use case
> for this, or was this just a case of adding IF EXISTS to all commands for
> the sake of completeness?
>
> Usually the client knows what statements have been pr
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> here is patch, that enables using a variadic parameter modifier for
> variadic "any" function.
>
> Motivation for this patch is consistent behave of "format" function,
> but it fixes behave of all this class variadic functions.
>
>
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> >
> > Hi Pavel.
> >
> > I am trying to review this patch and on my work computer everything
> compiles
> > and tests perfectly. However, on my laptop, the regression tests don't
> pass
> > with "cache lookup failed for type XYZ" wher
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
> > of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
> > already running or already stopped.
>
> Idempotent is a ten-dolla
Hello. It took me a while to get a version of this that was independent of
my data, but here it is. I don't understand what's going wrong but if you
change any part of this query (or at least any part I tried), the correct
result is returned.
This script will reproduce it:
=
create table t
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I think probably the best fix is to rejigger things so that Params
> > assigned by different executions of SS_replace_correlation_vars and
> > createplan.c can't share PARAM_EXEC numbers. This will result in
> > rather larger ecxt_pa
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Anyone want to check for any other missing IF EXISTS capability in other
> DDL?
>
Yes, DEALLOCATE.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Vik Reykja wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> Anyone want to check for any other missing IF EXISTS capability in other
>> DDL?
>>
>
> Yes, DEALLOCATE.
>
Patch attached.
deallocate_if_exis
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Lardi=E8re?= writes:
> > Indeed, brackets was not correct, it's better now (I think), and correct
> > some comments.
>
> Still wrong ... at the very least you missed copyfuncs/equalfuncs.
> In general, when adding a fie
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2012-10-21 11:49:26 -0400, cbbro...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > If there is a natural sequence (e.g. - a value assigned by nextval()),
> > that offers a natural place to apply the usual order-imposing ORDER BY
> > that we are expected to
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:35 PM, P. Christeas wrote:
> On Sunday 21 October 2012, Vik Reykja wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen
> wrote:
> > > Note: "INSERT … RETURNING" doesn't accept an ORDER BY clause.
> >
> > Would a
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Vik Reykja wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Lardi=E8re?= writes:
>> > Indeed, brackets was not correct, it's better now (I think), and correct
>> > some comments.
>>
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Would we consider adding such a switch (it should be easy enough to
> > do), or do we want to push this off to the mythical "let's improve the
> > logging subsystem" project that might eventually materialize if we're
> > lucky? Meaning - woul
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 05/10/2012 08:11 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
>> I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a co-author of the
>> pg_stat_statements normalisation feature. He did a good job of reviewing
>> it, but he didn't actually cont
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 18:24, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > Now that there are index only scans, there is a use case for having a
> > composite index which has the primary key or a unique key as the
> > prefix column(s) but with extra columns after that. Cu
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I am pleased to announce that Kevin Grittner has accepted the core
> committee's invitation to become our newest committer. As you all
> know, Kevin's done a good deal of work on the project over the past
> couple of years. We judged that he has
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've marked this patch committed, although in the end there was nothing
> left of it ;-)
>
Thank you, Dean and Tom!
I'm sorry for not participating in this thread, I've been away for the past
five weeks and have much catching up to do.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:21, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> > No they are not necessarily one logical unit. You could have a bunch of
> > functions called, say, "equal" which have pretty much nothing to do with
> > each other, since they refer t
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 17 July 2012 16:54, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> > Yeah, but that index is unnecessarily big if one will never use c or d
> in the search. The nice thing about covering indexes as described for
> SQLite 4 and implemented in MSSQL is that you
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 06:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> I am not sure if there's anything very good we can do about the
> problem of pg_regress misidentifying the postmaster it's managed to
> connect to. A real solution would probably be much more trouble than
> it's worth, anyway. However, it does se
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:39, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> My first thought was to have some general way of adding or subtracting
> an interval at the end of an input timestamp, eg. by adding another
> couple of special values - "plus " and "minus ".
> This would allow things like:
>
> TIMESTAMPTZ 'toda
in Section 13.2.3 of the 9.1 docs [1], the follow sentence fragment can be
found:
"using Serializable transactions will allow one transaction to commit and
and will roll the other back"
Note the double "and" towards the end. (Is this the right list for this kind
of report?)
[1]
http://www.postgr
33 matches
Mail list logo
