Hello,
the documentation for ALTER EXTENSION is missing the description for
the arguments of the form ADD OPERATOR name (left_type, right_type).
Albeit it's pretty obvious what they are, it is not so obvious what to
do for unary operators (i.e. replace the type on the missing side with
NONE).
Pa
Il 04/04/11 22:26, Robert Haas ha scritto:
I think you still need to update Solution.pm to match.
Here it is, including change of 3 'Id' attributes (I made them lowercase).
Thanks,
Gabriele
--
Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gabriele.bartol
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun abr 04 16:26:07 -0400 2011:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Gabriele Bartolini's message of lun abr 04 13:18:21 -0400
> > 2011:
> >> Il 04/04/11 18:37, Tom Lane ha scritto:
> >> > AFAIK, the main stumbling bloc
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Gabriele Bartolini's message of lun abr 04 13:18:21 -0400 2011:
>> Il 04/04/11 18:37, Tom Lane ha scritto:
>> > AFAIK, the main stumbling block for that is that XML doesn't allow
>> > abbreviated close tags (ie,whatever). Which
Excerpts from Gabriele Bartolini's message of lun abr 04 13:18:21 -0400 2011:
> Il 04/04/11 18:37, Tom Lane ha scritto:
> > AFAIK, the main stumbling block for that is that XML doesn't allow
> > abbreviated close tags (ie,whatever). Which is something that
> > we are not likely to give up. So I'm
On 04.04.2011 21:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Indeed. One thing I'd like to know is whether docbook v5 is any more
portable/easier to install
Unfortunately, as far as I know - there isn't a huge difference.
regards,
Susanne
--
Susanne Ebrecht - 2ndQuadrant
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Train
On 4/4/11, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Christopher Browne
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Susanne Ebrecht
>> wrote:
>>> Anyway, I figured out there is another argument for XML:
>>>
>>> My information is that DocBook 5.0 won't support SGML anymore.
>>>
>>> Whi
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> There are arguments as to why to switch to version 5, which is,
>> indeed, XML-only.
>> http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html#introduction-why-to-switch
> AFAICT, the biggest problem with our existing tool
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Susanne Ebrecht
> wrote:
>> Anyway, I figured out there is another argument for XML:
>>
>> My information is that DocBook 5.0 won't support SGML anymore.
>>
>> Which means - sooner or later a reaction is
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> Anyway, I figured out there is another argument for XML:
>
> My information is that DocBook 5.0 won't support SGML anymore.
>
> Which means - sooner or later a reaction is needed.
Yes, indeed.
I don't think that during the 9.1 alpha phase
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, this is pretty harmless,
>> so maybe we should just apply it and move on.
>
> I have no great objection to the patch as such; just wondering what the
> roadmap is.
Me, too.
On
Robert Haas writes:
> Even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, this is pretty harmless,
> so maybe we should just apply it and move on.
I have no great objection to the patch as such; just wondering what the
roadmap is.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mail
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> My information is that DocBook 5.0 won't support SGML anymore.
>
> Which means - sooner or later a reaction is needed.
Ouch.
Even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, this is pretty harmless,
so maybe we should just apply it and move o
On 04.04.2011 18:37, Tom Lane wrote:
AFAIK, the main stumbling block for that is that XML doesn't allow
abbreviated close tags (ie,whatever). Which is something that
we are not likely to give up. So I'm not sure of the point of changing
something as trivial as entity declaration casing. You're
Il 04/04/11 18:37, Tom Lane ha scritto:
AFAIK, the main stumbling block for that is that XML doesn't allow
abbreviated close tags (ie,whatever). Which is something that
we are not likely to give up. So I'm not sure of the point of changing
something as trivial as entity declaration casing. You
Gabriele Bartolini writes:
> My intention was to start and change some simple documentation files in
> order to make our conversion process from SGML to XML smoother, while
> keeping the SGML compatibility of the original documentation intact.
AFAIK, the main stumbling block for that is that X
Hi Robert (and Tom),
Il 04/04/11 16:57, Robert Haas ha scritto:
Forgive me for asking what may seem like a stupid question, but what's
not XML compliant about them now, and why do we care? The text is
only ever going to parse as SGML (not XML) so I guess I don't see why
it matters. I don't rea
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of dom abr 03 20:37:39 -0400 2011:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> I just noticed that \h MOVE is particularly unhelpful:
> >> alvherre=# \h move
> >> Command: MOVE
> >> Description: posit
Daniele Varrazzo writes:
> looks like EXTENSION is missing from the keywords list in the docs.
I believe Peter has a script for updating that table. Wonder if he's
run it lately ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To ma
Gabriele Bartolini writes:
>I have made very small modifications to a few files in the
> documentation directory, which involve SGML entity declarations.
> Currently they are all written lowercase, the patch makes them
> uppercase. This won't affect SGML parsing, as SGML is case insensitive
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Gabriele Bartolini
wrote:
> I have made very small modifications to a few files in the documentation
> directory, which involve SGML entity declarations. Currently they are all
> written lowercase, the patch makes them uppercase. This won't affect SGML
> parsing, a
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> the second sentence says "these features" - and I would understand:
>
> these features == man pages
>
> Means, I would understand that the two sentences belong together and
> both talk about man pages.
>
> When we don't mention man pages any
Hello,
looks like EXTENSION is missing from the keywords list in the docs.
It looks not reserved (creating a table and a type named "extension"
worked in PG 9.1a5). Being a PG extension I assume it's not mentioned
by any SQL standard.
Patch attached.
-- Daniele
From e4e932fe3fd6ae54962038c21ca8
On 04.04.2011 01:51, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
Is "man" really working on Windows?
Also the sentence says that the whole product isn't correct
installed just because docs aren't installed. Which also isn't
really true.
Honesty, I just would like
24 matches
Mail list logo
