Re: Documentation does not describes format for access privileges: =Tc/user

No, it does not. If you refer to `An empty grantee field in an aclitem stands for PUBLIC.` then "grantee field" was never described. What is this? It would be very clear if it was described in this way: The access privileges has the following format: "grantee=privileges/who grants". On Sun, Dec

Re: This is too implicit that recovery.signal will be removed

Only here I found explicit mention that recovery.signal will be removed: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-PITR-RECOVERY see p8. On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 10:06 AM PG Doc comments form wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Re: Documentation does not mention that basebackup could not be used on newer major version

Did not know that page even exists. No need to enumerate. It would be nice if you mention that `This tool is not suitable for restoring data in different major version`. On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 4:08 PM Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Mon, 2023-09-18 at 15:29 +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > The

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

Hello Eugen, > https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_12=95ed9fab6870d7c4b6266ea4d93def13 sorry, forget to update link to the latest example: https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_12=8e114ccc9f15a30ca3115cdc6c70d247 -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

FAIL (behavior is not expected) This is inconsistent to allow modify output data for UPDATE and restrict to do this for DELETE Thank you -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

Hello Eugen, Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:05:02 PM, you wrote: > Hello Bruce, > Friday, November 8, 2019, 12:28:18 AM, you wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 04:26:55PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:24:29AM +0200, Eugen Konkov wrote: >&g

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

Hello Bruce, Friday, November 8, 2019, 12:28:18 AM, you wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 04:26:55PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:24:29AM +0200, Eugen Konkov wrote: >> > >> As far as allowing DELETE to modify the trigger row for RETURNING, I

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

d at first letter, without > this the RETURNING rows **does not correspond actually deleted data** > Thank you. -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

NING". Becuase, as I have described at first letter, without this the RETURNING rows **does not correspond actually deleted data** Thank you. -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

on of row? -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Why 'infinity' is not in range '[2019-01-02, infinity]'?

a notion of “infinity”, but that is just another >value so far as the range type mechanisms are concerned. errr... mechanism of date ranges violates basic rules for 'Infinite (Unbounded) Ranges'? -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Why 'infinity' is not in range '[2019-01-02, infinity]'?

1. Also I found next ambiguous part: select upper_inf( '["2018-08-14","Infinity")'::daterange ); Thanks jstag from IRC for explanation that unbound and infinite are different essence. Thus, on the page https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/functions-range.html lower_inf(anyrange)

Re: Improve documentation for current_setting function

to empty string. This looks ugly. =( -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: DOC not so clear

JOIN LATERAL it would be more clear if DOC will be more explicit. > regards, tom lane -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov