Tom Lane wrote:
> Um, that's probably not it then. Rescan would only come into play for
> a plan node that's being used as the inside of a join, or some other
> contexts more complicated than this. A simple view ought to make no
> difference at all in the generated plan --- perhaps there's some
Ian Barwick wrote:
> On Monday 06 May 2002 18:51, Joe Conway wrote:
> (...)
>
>>Request for help:
>>-
>>So far I've tested with SQL and C functions.
>
> (...)
>
> Can you post an example of a function in C?
> (I'm trying out your patch from Friday).
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Bar
Tom,
reading my message again and your response, I see, that some points
were a bit unclear.
On Fri, 10 May 2002 13:12:21 +0200, I wrote:
|if it is acceptable for subtransactions to use up transaction numbers,
Of course, "use up" is nonsense, as it sounds like "use all
available"; this should h
[Note, I've changed the headers so everyone on the original distribution list
is getting a copy via Bcc, including -hackers. It was the simplest way I could
think of making certain the discussion moved to -interfaces as Marc requested.]
On Sat, 11 May 2002, Bartus Levente wrote:
> ... I think,
Barry Lind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> create table test (cola bigint);
> update test set cola = 100;
> ERROR: column "cola" is of type 'bigint' but expression is of type
> 'double precision'
> You will need to rewrite or cast the expression
dtoi8 is currently marked "not proimp
On Monday 06 May 2002 18:51, Joe Conway wrote:
(...)
> Request for help:
> -
> So far I've tested with SQL and C functions.
(...)
Can you post an example of a function in C?
(I'm trying out your patch from Friday).
Thanks,
Ian Barwick
---(end of broadc
Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> TransactionId GetParentXact(TransactionId xnum) uses pg_subtrans to
> find the parent transaction of xnum.
This is not only extremely expensive, but in practice would cause
infinite recursion: any attempt to validate the commit state of a
row in pg_sub
> A binary version of PostgreSQL for Windows should not use the cygwin
> dll. I know and understand there is some disagreement with this
> position, but in this I'm sure about this.
That may ultimately be desirable.
In the short term, it is likely preferable to use cygwin.
It is only necessary
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's not unlikely that those issues are exactly due to not having rescan
>> handled properly. What misbehavior are you seeing?
> Hmm, that might just be it.
> When I select from a view based on a function which returns a base type,
>
