I wanted to work on this todo item and I have a few questions about the
semantics of it. Essentially, it is not possible to have more than one relname
for a constraint, even though the comment in trigger.c says otherwise. I have
used this code to test this:
<<<
CREATE TABLE products (
I see what went wrong in my example. Unique constraints must have unique names
since they create an index. I'll try again, sorry for the noise.
--Dan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgs
>
> > Can't you disambiguate it using a column list on beings?
>
> Sure, after I figured out what the real problem was. Maybe I'm a
> dope, but when I get an error cursor pointed at an ambiguous column
> reference, my thought is "oh, I need to qualify that reference" - not
> "oh, some completely u
I'm going through a few files and trying to clean them up for style mostly and a
bit of refactoring. I am curious about the preferred style for a one line
comment. I see them in both of these forms and I would like to keep it
consistent.
/* a one line comment */
or
/*
* a one line comment
*/
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:28:13AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Dan Colish wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:50:18AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:24 -0700, Dan Colish wrote:
>
> > > > You can definitely create updatable vie
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:50:18AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:24 -0700, Dan Colish wrote:
> > I am not sure where that view implemenation is, but I doubt its
> > stalled because of the rule system.
>
> It is.
>
> > You can definitel
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:54:56PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David E. Wheeler wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 2009, at 1:57 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> >
> > >It's less about like or dislike and more about facing up to the
> > >reality that we've got a major legacy foot-gun left over from the
> > >experim
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 03:15:10PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Dan Colish wrote:
> >When you speak of writing to a view, what do you mean exactly? Are we saying
> >refresh a view or update the parent tables of a view?
> >
> >
>
> He means INSERT, U
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 11:42:45AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > There are already patches to deal with the first, at least for the
> > kinds of VIEWs where this can be deduced automatically, and people are
> > starting to take on the second.
>
> How would we deal with VIEWs which weren't simpl
- Forwarded message from Robert Haas -
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:52:35 -0400
From: Robert Haas
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan
Cc: Dan Colish , pgsql-rrreview...@postgresql.org,
Jeff Janes ,
Hans-Juergen Schoenig ,
Michael Meskes
Subject: Re: CF 2009-09: initial
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:45:17AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> On 09/26/2009 10:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>If you think there's
> >>something useful I could do, let me know and I'll take a look.
> >I feel like I need a better way of unit testing new code. Some of the
> >code in the patch is to h
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:31:21AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Nope, but it was on the checklist and I was being thorough.
>
> That's a good thing. I was just seeing if I needed to get involved in
> performance testing.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> www.pgexperts.com
I
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:21:08AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 9/17/09 3:54 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Dan Colish wrote:
> >
> >> - Performance appears to be the same although I don't have a good
> >> way for
> >> te
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:10:14PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > You really should be returning a value at the point since the function
> > signature defines a return type. If not the function should be void,
> > which it cannot be in this context since it is used for boolean tests
> > else
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:45:45PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Dan Colish wrote:
>> CREATE TABLE
>> INSERT 0 10
>> Timing is on.
>> COPY 10
>> Time: 83.273 ms
>> BEGIN
>> Time: 0.412 ms
>>
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:10:35PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Greg Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Dan Colish wrote:
>>
>>> - Performance appears to be the same although I don't have a good
>>> way for
>>> testing this at
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:56:44AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for my late reply.
> There is no other update for this patch since the 13th of August, at least
> until today. The new patch is attached
> By the way I worked on the comments that Dan and Gabriel pointed out.
> I
Hi,
I have read through the patch a few times and it looks OK. The
additions to the COPY syntax work as expected and as agreed upon
based on the thread. Below are some points from my checklist.
- Patch applies cleanly
- Included new tests and documentation
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:56:07PM -0400, Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
> Dan,
>
> My bad, I copy/pasted the hard link in output/copy.source instead of
> @abs_build...@.
> Here is a complete version of the patch with the fix on output/copy.source.
>
> Emmanuel
Emmanuel,
Thanks for ge
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:56:07PM -0400, Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
> Dan,
>
> My bad, I copy/pasted the hard link in output/copy.source instead of
> @abs_build...@.
> Here is a complete version of the patch with the fix on output/copy.source.
>
> Emmanuel
>
Hooray, that works just fine now. I gue
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:07:33AM -0400, Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder though if we couldn't simplify matters. Offhand it seems to me
>> that psql doesn't need to validate the command's syntax fully. All it
>> really needs to do is find the target filename and replace it w
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:53:11PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I just wanted to follow-up on your pgbench patch. The latest version
> that I see is from August 13th. Is that the correct patch to be
> reviewing? Do you have any other updates on it?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:23:00AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> Hopefully this plan is acceptable to everyone. If not, please feel
>> free to reply here.
>
> +1
>
> And I'm available to review again, of course.
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
> --
> S
Hi,
I've been looking through the current state of docuemtation,
including comments, with respect to the executor code and I would
like to improve upon their condition. If anyone has notes,
pseudocode, thoughts on how it all really works, or anything that
ca
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:55:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Colish writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:00:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm, you mean a Query, or a raw unanalyzed InsertStmt?
>
> > In this case, its a raw InsertStmt. I would like to pass thi
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:00:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Colish writes:
> > I am currently trying to convert an insertstmt back into a const
> > char *queryString, but I can't find an existing function to do this
> > for the life of me. I will writ
I am currently trying to convert an insertstmt back into a const
char *queryString, but I can't find an existing function to do this
for the life of me. I will write one if none exits, but I figured I
ask here first. Unfortunately, nodeToString is not quite right f
I found these docs to very helpful for understand how the backend works,
but for the executor specifically, I think following the code is best.
http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/pgsql/src/tools/backend/index.html
--
--Dan
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:35:04PM -0300, Edson Ramiro
28 matches
Mail list logo
