On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 03:46:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > So this comes down to 5 items, as per the attached. Thoughts?
>
> These items look fine to me, except this bit seems a bit awkward:
>
> + Note that the delayed indexing technique used for GIN
> + (se
Michael Paquier writes:
> So this comes down to 5 items, as per the attached. Thoughts?
These items look fine to me, except this bit seems a bit awkward:
+ Note that the delayed indexing technique used for GIN
+ (see for details) makes this advice
+ less necessary, but for very lar
On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 01:27:48PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> activity of scans already in progress. This can result in
> unpredictable changes in the row ordering returned by queries that
> have no ORDER BY clause. Setting this parameter
> to
> -off ensures
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 09:18:00AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 25/10/2020 23:56, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 11:09:26PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > Findings in detail follow.
> >
> > Are you working on a patch for these ?
>
> I pushed the patch I included
On 25/10/2020 23:56, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 11:09:26PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Findings in detail follow.
Are you working on a patch for these ?
I pushed the patch I included in that email now, to remove the most
clear cases. I'm not planning to do anything mo
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 11:09:26PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Findings in detail follow.
Are you working on a patch for these ?
Otherwise, since I started something similar in April, I could put something
together based on comments you've gotten here.
--
Justin
Greetings,
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
> On 23/10/2020 17:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> >But anyway, this was about documentation not code. What I'm wondering
> >about is when to drop things like, say, this bit in the regex docs:
> >
> > Two significant incompatibilities exist betwe
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 23/10/2020 17:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Seems like we could have gotten rid of that by now, but when exactly
>> does it become fair game? And can we have a non-ad-hoc process for
>> getting rid of such cruft?
> I did some grepping for strings like "version 7", "pre-8
On 23/10/2020 17:51, Tom Lane wrote:
But anyway, this was about documentation not code. What I'm wondering
about is when to drop things like, say, this bit in the regex docs:
Two significant incompatibilities exist between AREs and the ERE syntax
recognized by pre-7.4 releases of Post
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > We do need to decide at what point we're going to move forward pg_dump's
> > oldest server version support.
>
> I'm not really in a big hurry to move it forward at all. There were
> good solid reasons to drop support
Stephen Frost writes:
> We do need to decide at what point we're going to move forward pg_dump's
> oldest server version support.
I'm not really in a big hurry to move it forward at all. There were
good solid reasons to drop support for pre-schema and pre-pg_depend
servers, because of the messy
2020年10月23日(金) 23:12 Stephen Frost :
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost writes:
> > > Isn't this a bit pre-mature as we still support running pg_dump against
> > > 8.0 clusters..?
> >
> > The removed para was discussing the behavior of pg_dump itself. What
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > Isn't this a bit pre-mature as we still support running pg_dump against
> > 8.0 clusters..?
>
> The removed para was discussing the behavior of pg_dump itself. What
> server version you run it against isn't relevant.
Stephen Frost writes:
> Isn't this a bit pre-mature as we still support running pg_dump against
> 8.0 clusters..?
The removed para was discussing the behavior of pg_dump itself. What
server version you run it against isn't relevant.
Having said that, there are a *lot* of past-their-sell-by-date
Greetings,
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
> On 06/10/2020 15:15, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> >2020年10月6日(火) 21:13 Ian Lawrence Barwick :
> >>The pg_dump doc page [1], under the -t/--table option, contains a Note
> >>documenting the behavioural differences introduced in PostgreSQL
2020年10月23日(金) 17:52 Heikki Linnakangas :
>
> On 06/10/2020 15:15, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> > 2020年10月6日(火) 21:13 Ian Lawrence Barwick :
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> The pg_dump doc page [1], under the -t/--table option, contains a Note
> >> documenting the behavioural differences introduced in Post
On 06/10/2020 15:15, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
2020年10月6日(火) 21:13 Ian Lawrence Barwick :
Hi
The pg_dump doc page [1], under the -t/--table option, contains a Note
documenting the behavioural differences introduced in PostgreSQL 8.2.
As it's been almost exactly 14 years since that note was
2020年10月6日(火) 21:13 Ian Lawrence Barwick :
>
> Hi
>
> The pg_dump doc page [1], under the -t/--table option, contains a Note
> documenting the behavioural differences introduced in PostgreSQL 8.2.
>
> As it's been almost exactly 14 years since that note was added [2], I suggest
> it can be removed
18 matches
Mail list logo
