On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 7:54 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 7/13/20 10:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alexander Korotkov writes:
> >> Good compromise. Done as you proposed.
> >
> > I'm OK with this version.
>
> I saw this was committed and the item was adjusted on the Open Items list.
Thank you!
On 7/13/20 10:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
>> Good compromise. Done as you proposed.
>
> I'm OK with this version.
I saw this was committed and the item was adjusted on the Open Items list.
Thank you!
Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> Good compromise. Done as you proposed.
I'm OK with this version.
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 10:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
> > The proposed patch is attached. This patch is fixes two points:
> > * Adds strategy number and purpose to output of \dAo
> > * Renames "Left/right arg type" columns of \dAp to "Registered left/right
> > type"
>
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> The proposed patch is attached. This patch is fixes two points:
> * Adds strategy number and purpose to output of \dAo
> * Renames "Left/right arg type" columns of \dAp to "Registered left/right
> type"
I think that \dAp should additionally be changed to print
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 2:24 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:03 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> > From the RMT perspective, if there is an agreed upon approach (which it
> > sounds like from the above) can someone please commit to working on
> > resolving this open item?
>
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:03 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> From the RMT perspective, if there is an agreed upon approach (which it
> sounds like from the above) can someone please commit to working on
> resolving this open item?
I hardly can extract an approach from this thread, because for me
On 7/7/20 6:09 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> I'm also wondering whether this is fully correct. Would it be possible for
>>> the
>>> argument types of the operator/function to differ from the left arg/right
>>>
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I'm also wondering whether this is fully correct. Would it be possible for
> > the
> > argument types of the operator/function to differ from the left arg/right
> > arg
> > types? (Perhaps binary compatible?)
>
>
Sergey, Nikita, Alexander, if you can please see this thread and propose
a solution, that'd be very welcome.
On 2020-Jun-06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I'm also wondering whether this is fully correct. Would it be possible for
> > the
> > argument types of the
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I'm also wondering whether this is fully correct. Would it be possible for
> the
> argument types of the operator/function to differ from the left arg/right arg
> types? (Perhaps binary compatible?)
pg_amop.h specifies that
* The primary key for this table is .
I'm somewhat confused by the selection and order of the output columns
produced by the new psql commands \dAo and \dAp (access method operators
and functions, respectively). Currently, you get
\dAo
AM | Operator family | Operator
-+-+--
gin |
12 matches
Mail list logo
