Simple queries are fine, but pageinspect can query previous data. If you return
the same result as a simple query, this is similar to the oracle flashback
version query.
On 7/11/2018 09:51，Peter Geoghegan wrote：
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Yang Jie wrote:
my question is not split the
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Yang Jie wrote:
> Simple queries are fine, but pageinspect can query previous data. If you
> return the same result as a simple query, this is similar to the oracle
> flashback version query.
Please don't top-post.
That may be true in some limited sense, but
Thank you for your answer.
my question is not split the data into individual attributes.
I want to see the data in the table, but I don't want to be a bytea type.
在2018年7月11日 02:48，Peter Geoghegan 写道：
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:41 AM, 杨杰 wrote:
Why does the heap_page_item () of the
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Yang Jie wrote:
> my question is not split the data into individual attributes.
> I want to see the data in the table, but I don't want to be a bytea type.
What's wrong with simply using an SQL query?
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:41 AM, 杨杰 wrote:
> Why does the heap_page_item () of the pageinspect extension not consider
> providing better user-friendliness?
>
> My test table has the following data, and when I look at the t_data I see
> data of type bytea instead of a more intuitive type, even
Hi,
Why does the heap_page_item () of the pageinspect extension not consider
providing better user-friendliness?
My test table has the following data, and when I look at the t_data I see data
of type bytea instead of a more intuitive type, even the same type as the
original table.
#
