Re: [DOCS] INTEGER range ("-2147483648" is not accepted.)

2010-06-23 Thread Thom Brown
On 23 June 2010 02:49, Tom Lane wrote: > Thom Brown writes: >> Is that the right behaviour though?  Shouldn't the signed value reach >> the cast step rather than the absolute value?  Or maybe Postgres could >> implicitly accept -12345::integer to be (-12345)::integer.  Is there a >> blocking reas

Re: [DOCS] INTEGER range ("-2147483648" is not accepted.)

2010-06-23 Thread Mike Toews
On 22 June 2010 18:49, Tom Lane wrote: > Thom Brown writes: >> Is that the right behaviour though?  Shouldn't the signed value reach >> the cast step rather than the absolute value?  Or maybe Postgres could >> implicitly accept -12345::integer to be (-12345)::integer.  Is there a >> blocking reas

Re: [DOCS] INTEGER range ("-2147483648" is not accepted.)

2010-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike Toews wrote: > On 22 June 2010 18:49, Tom Lane wrote: >> Thom Brown writes: >>> Is that the right behaviour though?  Shouldn't the signed value reach >>> the cast step rather than the absolute value?  Or maybe Postgres could >>> implicitly accept -12345::in

Re: [DOCS] hot standby documentation

2010-06-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 14:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Fixed. See attached. I started reading this but by chunk seven I only agree with a couple of these changes. None of them seem hugely important changes. I'd suggest you make a pass of copy editing that doesn't seek to alter the meanings or

Re: [DOCS] hot standby documentation

2010-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 14:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Fixed.  See attached. > > I started reading this but by chunk seven I only agree with a couple of > these changes. None of them seem hugely important changes. > > I'd suggest you make a

Re: [DOCS] hot standby documentation

2010-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> We could also allow SELECT ... FOR SHARE during Hot Standby, simply by >> making it same as normal SELECT, without any ill effects. > > True. Actually, wait a minute. Why wouldn't we need to lock the tuples on the standby just as we do on th

Re: [DOCS] hot standby documentation

2010-06-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 23/06/10 22:05, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: We could also allow SELECT ... FOR SHARE during Hot Standby, simply by making it same as normal SELECT, without any ill effects. True. Not really. It won't matter while the standby is in read-only mode