"David G. Johnston" writes:
> Based upon what you've said I would soften it a bit. Given my own
> experience I'd probably point out what is now obvious to me - that the
> allowance of the ORDER BY clause is implementation specific. But I'd be
> fine chalking that up to an anomalous reading.
> S
On Saturday, May 21, 2016, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" > writes:
> > Based upon what you've said I would soften it a bit. Given my own
> > experience I'd probably point out what is now obvious to me - that the
> > allowance of the ORDER BY clause is implementation specific. But I'd be
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> The programlisting for invoking the bench.pl script in contrib/intarray is
> referring to the pre-extension file _int.sql which was removed in 9.1 (commit
> 629b3af) in favor of intarrayâx.y.sql. Attached patch use âpsql -câ to
> create
> the extension instead o
> On 21 May 2016, at 21:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> The programlisting for invoking the bench.pl script in contrib/intarray is
>> referring to the pre-extension file _int.sql which was removed in 9.1 (commit
>> 629b3af) in favor of intarray—x.y.sql. Attached patch use “
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/plpgsql-porting.html
Description:
on page :
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpgsql-porting.html
under 40.12.1. Porting Examples -> Example 40-8. Porting a Simple Fu
