Tom,
sorry, but the address that you wrote tells that there isn´t any patch to
apply. Is this patch Itagaki's one? How could I pick it?
By the way, don´t worry about the whole idea. It's an experiment that shall
be improved in the future, I hope.
Best regards,
Eduardo Morelli
etmorelli wrote:
Tom,
sorry, but the address that you wrote tells that there isn?t any patch to
apply. Is this patch Itagaki's one? How could I pick it?
By the way, don?t worry about the whole idea. It's an experiment that shall
be improved in the future, I hope.
Best regards,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CREATE INDEX foo ON bar (x) WITH (fillfactor = 70, option = blah);
Yeah, something along this line is what I'd like to see; probably the
first form since that creates the least hazard of foreclosing other
additions to the syntax later.
Anyway the bottom
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Um, are you aware that a patch for that was already submitted?
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I find the whole idea pretty ugly myself.
Tom,
sorry, but the address that you wrote tells that there isn´t any patch to
apply. Is this patch
Eduardo Morelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sorry, but the address that you wrote tells that there isn´t any patch to
apply. Is this patch Itagaki's one? How could I pick it?
Yeah, should be in the pgpatches archives [ digs... ] here you go:
Patch withdrawn by author for reworking.
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CREATE INDEX foo ON bar (x) WITH (fillfactor = 70, option = blah);
Yeah, something along this line is what
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:16:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
What's bugging me about it is that the proposed syntax wedges a bunch
of index-access-method-specific parameters into what ought to be an
access-method-agnostic syntax; and furthermore does it by adding more
grammar keywords, something
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:16:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
What's bugging me about it is that the proposed syntax wedges a bunch
of index-access-method-specific parameters into what ought to be an
access-method-agnostic syntax; and furthermore
Hi,
I'm trying to extend the CREATE INDEX statement with a fillfactor clause. In
Gram.y, I did this:
IndexStmt: CREATE index_opt_unique INDEX index_name ON qualified_name
access_method_clause '(' index_params ')' fillfactor_clause where_clause
{
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to extend the CREATE INDEX statement with a fillfactor clause. In
Gram.y, I did this:
IndexStmt: CREATE index_opt_unique INDEX index_name ON qualified_name
access_method_clause '(' index_params ')' fillfactor_clause where_clause
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 07:14:45PM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to extend the CREATE INDEX statement with a fillfactor clause. In
Gram.y, I did this:
snip
I had to add a new field into IndexStmt (unsigned int fillfactor). Everything
is fine after parsing except that I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to extend the CREATE INDEX statement with a fillfactor
clause.
Um, are you aware that a patch for that was already submitted?
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I find the whole idea pretty ugly myself.
regards, tom
On 3/3/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to extend the CREATE INDEX statement with a fillfactor
clause.
Um, are you aware that a patch for that was already submitted?
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I find the whole idea pretty
Jaime Casanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 3/3/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find the whole idea pretty ugly myself.
why? if i can ask? you didn't seem upset with that in the thread
What's bugging me about it is that the proposed syntax wedges a bunch
of
14 matches
Mail list logo
