On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 08:17 +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> This patch fixes two issues on plpgsql.sgml.
The first hunk seems like a regression to me: AFAICS the current
phrasing is what is intended.
*** 133,139
PL/pgSQL functions can also be declared to return
! a se
Neil Conway a écrit :
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 08:17 +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> This patch fixes two issues on plpgsql.sgml.
>
> The first hunk seems like a regression to me: AFAICS the current
> phrasing is what is intended.
>
> *** 133,139
>
>
>PL/pgSQL functions c
I'm currently translating chkpass.sgml and I'm having problems with this
sentence :
This is currently a stub that does nothing.
According to answers.com, a stub is a "A small software routine placed
into a program that provides a common function." So the sentence itself
is understandable but I d
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> I'm currently translating chkpass.sgml and I'm having problems with this
> sentence :
> This is currently a stub that does nothing.
>
> According to answers.com, a stub is a "A small software routine placed
> into a program that provides a common function." So the sent
A few docs changes, as mentioned.
Comments?
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> A few docs changes, as mentioned.
>
> Comments?
You forgot the patch :-)
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4
"El hombre nunca sabe de lo que es capaz hasta que lo intenta" (C. Dickens)
---(end of broad
Alvaro Herrera a écrit :
> Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> I'm currently translating chkpass.sgml and I'm having problems with this
>> sentence :
>> This is currently a stub that does nothing.
>>
>> According to answers.com, a stub is a "A small software routine placed
>> into a program that provides
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 10:12 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > A few docs changes, as mentioned.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> You forgot the patch :-)
No, just a very short patch. :-)
This patch is slightly longer...
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Neil Conway a ?crit :
> > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 08:17 +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> >> This patch fixes two issues on plpgsql.sgml.
> >
> > The first hunk seems like a regression to me: AFAICS the current
> > phrasing is what is intended.
> >
> > *** 133,139
>
Folks,
Best practices for partitioning so far have shown that TRIGGERs are
better than RULEs for most cases. Please find attached a patch which
reflects this.
Thanks to Robert Treat for help putting this together :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed. I couldn't find any value to that phrase and couldn't find better
> wording, so I removed it. Patch attached and applied.
This is not an improvement.
The point of the original wording is that you have to say
RETURNS SETOF sometype
you c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:26:15 -0800
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Best practices for partitioning so far have shown that TRIGGERs are
> better than RULEs for most cases. Please find attached a patch which
> reflects this.
>
>
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Best practices for partitioning so far have shown that TRIGGERs are
> better than RULEs for most cases. Please find attached a patch which
> reflects this.
Entirely removing the example of how to do it with rules doesn't
seem like a good idea.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:53:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Best practices for partitioning so far have shown that TRIGGERs
> > are better than RULEs for most cases. Please find attached a
> > patch which reflects this.
>
> Entirely removing the exampl
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Agreed. I couldn't find any value to that phrase and couldn't find better
> > wording, so I removed it. Patch attached and applied.
>
> This is not an improvement.
>
> The point of the original wording is that you have to say
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:57:10 -0800
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:53:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Best practices for partitioning so far have shown that TRIGGERs
>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:39:04PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:26:15 -0800
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Best practices for partitioning so far have shown that TRIGGERs are
> > better
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:41:20PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:39:04PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:26:15 -0800
> > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> >
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> --- 132,142
>
>
>
> ! PL/pgSQL functions can also be declared to return a
> ! group of values, either as a single row, or a group of rows, like a
> ! table. Such a function generates its output by executing
> ! RETURN NEXT for each
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > --- 132,142
> >
> >
> >
> > ! PL/pgSQL functions can also be declared to return a
> > ! group of values, either as a single row, or a group of rows, like a
> > ! table. Such a function generates its output by
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:53:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Entirely removing the example of how to do it with rules doesn't
>> seem like a good idea.
> It does to me. I haven't found a case yet where rules worked even as
> well as triggers.
I don't ha
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 10:12 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > >
> > > A few docs changes, as mentioned.
> > >
> > > Comments?
> >
> > You forgot the patch :-)
>
> No, just a very short patch. :-)
>
> This patch is slightly longer...
Slightly modified
Bruce Momjian a écrit :
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>[...]
>> The point of "any datatype they can return a single instance of" is that
>> this can be a set of scalar values (e.g. "RETURNS SETOF int") or of a
>> complex type ("RETURNS SETOF table"), or anything else they can return a
>> single instance
David Fetter wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane managed to contrive an example where RULEs might
> conceivably be the least-bad way to do this, that being a machine
> where no PLs may be installed.
Perhaps this just means we should consider installing plpgsql by
default.
--
Alvaro Herrera
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:17:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:53:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Entirely removing the example of how to do it with rules doesn't
> >> seem like a good idea.
>
> > It does to me. I haven't found
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 10:06:01PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>
> > Greg Sabino Mullane managed to contrive an example where RULEs
> > might conceivably be the least-bad way to do this, that being a
> > machine where no PLs may be installed.
>
> Perhaps this just means we
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 3:53 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Entirely removing the example of how to do it with rules doesn't
> > seem like a good idea.
>
> Agreed.
Do you have an example of one use case where using RULEs rath
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2007 3:53 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Entirely removing the example of how to do it with rules doesn't
>>> seem like a good idea.
>>
>> Agreed.
> Do you have a
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:55:53AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> >> On Nov 28, 2007 3:53 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Entirely removing the example of how to do it with rules
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:55:53 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> >> On Nov 28, 2007 3:53 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
