Re: [DOCS] Date/Time Types : internals
Robert Haas writes: > So which calendar are we using, Julian or Gregorian? Gregorian. I fail to see anyplace that suggests we use the Julian calendar. We do understand the Julian date system, which is something entirely different with a confusingly similar name. (Julian dates are just a count of days since a reference point in 4713 BC.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
[DOCS] Behaviour of sql language function
Hi all I noticed the following beaviour, if a command in a sql function fails the other statements fail like if the entire function where surrounded by a begin-commit block. While I find this behaviour nice, as far as I could find, this behaviour is not documented[1]. I wished to create a function that depends on such way of working but I cannot trust that sql functions will continue to work that way on the next postgresql versions. So, is it documented somewhere? I'm linking to a pastebin file that exemplifies the behaviour. [1] - http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-createfunction.html [2] - http://pastebin.com/LWfFgH7L -- Marcelo Lacerda
Re: [DOCS] Behaviour of sql language function
Marcelo Sena wrote: > So, is it documented somewhere? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/tutorial-transactions.html | PostgreSQL actually treats every SQL statement as being executed | within a transaction. If you do not issue a BEGIN command, then | each individual statement has an implicit BEGIN and (if | successful) COMMIT wrapped around it. Combine this with the fact that a function can only run in the context of a command, like: SELECT func_name(); You have your guarantee -- as long as you understand the possible action of subtransactions (like savepoints). -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Re: [DOCS] Date/Time Types : internals
I wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> So which calendar are we using, Julian or Gregorian? > Gregorian. I fail to see anyplace that suggests we use the Julian > calendar. We do understand the Julian date system, which is something > entirely different with a confusingly similar name. (Julian dates are > just a count of days since a reference point in 4713 BC.) On further reflection I wonder whether we shouldn't just get rid of "8.5.6. Internals", which is at best rather inappropriately placed. A person reading this portion of the docs probably couldn't care less whether we use Julian-date calculations internally. It might be appropriate to mention that in appendix B.4, where there's an actual explanation of what Julian dates are; but not here. What I think we should have here is an externally-facing specification, that is state that we follow the Gregorian calendar rules even for years before Pope Gregory's edict, and then reference B.4 for more info. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Re: [DOCS] "TL;DR:"
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Kevin Grittner < [email protected]> wrote: > > "Kevin Grittner" writes: > >> How do people feel about "TL;DR:" being used at the start of a > >> Wiki page to which we want to direct users? > > Tom Lane wrote: > > I think it's a pretty lousy way to start off this page in > > particular; way too flippant for something we point newcomers to > > when they ask for help. +1 for rewriting in a more formal style. > > "Greg Sabino Mullane" wrote: > > Very inappropriate there: remove 'em! > > I took a shot at reworking the portion ahead of the TOC, but I know > there are better wordsmiths than I out there. If anyone wants to > redo it, I won't be offended. > > I have a feeling the "Why were you sent this link?" section is a > little harsh, too; but haven't taken a run at that yet. > > Reworded it. Now looking at the rest of the document. -selena -- http://chesnok.com
Re: [DOCS] "TL;DR:"
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Selena Deckelmann wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Kevin Grittner < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > "Kevin Grittner" writes: >> >> How do people feel about "TL;DR:" being used at the start of a >> >> Wiki page to which we want to direct users? >> >> Tom Lane wrote: >> > I think it's a pretty lousy way to start off this page in >> > particular; way too flippant for something we point newcomers to >> > when they ask for help. +1 for rewriting in a more formal style. >> >> "Greg Sabino Mullane" wrote: >> > Very inappropriate there: remove 'em! >> >> I took a shot at reworking the portion ahead of the TOC, but I know >> there are better wordsmiths than I out there. If anyone wants to >> redo it, I won't be offended. >> >> I have a feeling the "Why were you sent this link?" section is a >> little harsh, too; but haven't taken a run at that yet. >> >> > Reworded it. Now looking at the rest of the document. > Ok, I made some changes. The numbering really stymied me. Greg -- is there a better way to manage the numbering? One of the problems with the long lists is that they are not numbered - so if you're a poor bug reporter trying to scan that list, you lose your place. But I want the formatting to be consistent without having to give numbers to the sub-points. -selena -- http://chesnok.com
