On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:22:17AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 03:27:59PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> >> +subdirectory of both the current directory and the
> >> >> +PGDATA directory.
> >>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:39:57PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Since I've spent a fair amount of brainpower trying to use
> rather than where possible, I'm not innately enthusiastic about
> a project whose end is to get rid of . I won't lose a lot of
> sleep over it if we decide to go that direc
jitendravarshney...@gmail.com writes:
> function idx(integer[], integer) does not exist
Either you didn't install the intarray extension, or you did but you
put it in a schema that's not in your search_path.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/intarray.html
Description:
function idx(integer[], integer) does not exist
18:01:40,517 ERROR [stderr] (default task-13) Hint: No function matches
the given name and argument ty
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, that complaint was already lodged in another thread. What I
> think *this* thread is about is whether we ought to switch from the
> up-to-now-project-standard style
>
> ... how to frob your wug (see ) ...
>
> to
>
> ... how to f
Robert Haas writes:
> Personally, I think that if the doc toolchain changeover changed the
> way xrefs render - and it seems that it did - that's a bug that ought
> to be fixed,
I quite agree. We'll have enough to do with the toolchain changeover;
we don't need random changes in what common mark
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think there are a lto of people who use dead tree editions anymore,
but they certainly do exist. A lot of people use the PDFs though,
particularly fo
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> whether to continue using "see section m.n"-type cross-references
For my part, I have a preference for including the section name
with the link text, although if it took much work to add it (rather
than being the new default) I might question wh
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't think there are a lto of people who use dead tree editions anymore,
>>> but they certainly do exist. A lot of people use the PDFs though,
>>> particularly for offline reading or loading them in ebook readers. So it
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think there are a lto of people who use dead tree editions anymore,
>> but they certainly do exist. A lot of people use the PDFs though,
>> particularly for offline reading or loading them in ebook readers. So it
>> still has to be workab
10 matches
Mail list logo
