On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and very nearly caused postgres to be summarily
extirpated (only rescued at the last minute by my
On 1/13/14, 10:40 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringercr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and very nearly caused postgres to be summarily
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and very nearly caused
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:45 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:45 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
This project has no deprecation policy,
I believe it actually does, although it's not a formal, written
policy. Would you like to help draft one up?
Lack of
On 01/14/2014 12:40 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and very nearly caused postgres to be summarily
On 01/14/2014 12:33 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 01/14/2014 12:40 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and
On 1/13/14, 5:33 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
So I guess the question is: Is it worth all that hassle to remove a
misfeature you have to go out of your way to use? Is support for non-1
lower bounds stopping us from doing something useful and important? Or
is it just an irritation that it exists?
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
So I guess the question is: Is it worth all that hassle to remove a
misfeature you have to go out of your way to use? Is support for non-1
lower bounds stopping us from doing something useful and important? Or
is it just an irritation that it exists?
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think the argument really is that some people don't want to
make their application code work with such cases (which is fine)
so they'd like an inside-the-database guarantee that the app code
won't ever see such cases. Which is less fine, ISTM: if you fear
On 1/13/14, 7:10 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think the argument really is that some people don't want to
make their application code work with such cases (which is fine)
so they'd like an inside-the-database guarantee that the app code
won't ever see such
On Jan14, 2014, at 00:33 , Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
So I guess the question is: Is it worth all that hassle to remove a
misfeature you have to go out of your way to use? Is support for non-1
lower bounds stopping us from doing something useful and important? Or
is it just an
On Jan14, 2014, at 02:10 , Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
The fact that some
day some new programmer might not be aware of all business rules,
or might choose to try to ignore them is the reason you add
constraints to columns and domains.
Well, for columns and domains that seems
On 01/10/2014 07:41 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:30:25PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a
huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of
any legitimate use cases for it, and hate the
On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any legitimate
use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of extra code needed to
On 01/10/2014 04:26 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a
huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of
any legitimate use cases for it, and hate the
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:26:04PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was
a huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think
of any legitimate use cases for
Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz wrote:
Starting arrays at zero makes the most sense, as then you can
calculate the displacement simply as (index) * (size of entry),
and not have subtract one from the index first. This would be my
preference.
The SQL standard explicitly specifies
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any
legitimate use
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
mistake.
On 1/10/14, 4:14 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any legitimate
use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of extra code needed to deal
with it.
Obviously we can't just drop support, but what about an
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any
legitimate use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of extra code
needed to deal
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:30:25PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a
huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of
any legitimate use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of
extra code needed to deal with
On 10/01/14 12:41, David Fetter wrote:
[..]
David (who is among that tiny minority who believe that arrays should
be indexed from 0.5 as a compromise ;)
Clearly we should use 1/e as the starting index, where 'e' is Euler's
constant 2.718... :-)
(Much more mathematically profound!)
Cheers,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
We have dropped support, as you put it, for bigger and harder-hitting
mistakes than this. Anybody whose code has this kind of silliness in
it will be in other kinds of trouble, too.
While the decision to make it possible to
On 10/01/14 12:55, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
We have dropped support, as you put it, for bigger and harder-hitting
mistakes than this. Anybody whose code has this kind of silliness in
it will be in other kinds of trouble, too.
Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any legitimate
use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of extra code needed to deal
with it.
You lack
28 matches
Mail list logo
