I have applied the following doc patch for array_upper/lower(). The
other issues have already been addressed.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I will be applying outstanding 7.4 patches on
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd suggest contributing what you have now. Waiting just keeps others
> from contributing to the topic (which is not your intention certainly,
> but it would have that effect).
Right -- all the work I've done on the topic has been submitted to
Bruce. I
I concur, but do we have some sort of commitment that the rest of
the SQL200x sequence machinery will be supported eventually? Otherwise,
adding some irrelevant syntax variations in limited places doesn't seem
fruitful.
Yes, I'll implement the rest of the SQL200x sequence stuff
eventually. Howeve
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I concur, but do we have some sort of commitment that the rest of
> the SQL200x sequence machinery will be supported eventually? Otherwise,
> adding some irrelevant syntax variations in limited places doesn't seem
> fruitful.
Yes, I'll implement the
Neil Conway writes:
> Last I heard, we had concluded that SQL2003's notion of a sequence is
> sufficiently close to ours that the differences are mostly syntax.
I concur, but do we have some sort of commitment that the rest of
the SQL200x sequence machinery will be supported eventually? Otherwis
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:44:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:27:05AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> CLUSTER ALL patch: I have a problem with this, specifically the fact
> >> that it changes CLUSTER into a multi-transaction operat
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:27:05AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> CLUSTER ALL patch: I have a problem with this, specifically the fact
>> that it changes CLUSTER into a multi-transaction operation.
> That was your suggestion...
Well, it'd be okay (IMHO anyw
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:27:05AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> CLUSTER ALL patch: I have a problem with this, specifically the fact
> that it changes CLUSTER into a multi-transaction operation.
That was your suggestion...
> That renders CLUSTER non-rollbackable and not callable from functions.
> Af
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> \pset pager always: I thought we had rejected that idea in favor of
> making the whether-to-use-pager decision pay attention to width as
> well as number of lines.
The main problem with this is that all pagers (by definition) support
vertical scr
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CREATE SEQUENCE syntax changes: did we decide whether SQL99's notion of
> a sequence is close enough to ours that migrating to their syntax would
> be a good idea, and not just a source of confusion? I seem to recall
> some doubts being voiced about this (by
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will be applying outstanding 7.4 patches on Friday:
> http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
> If anyone wants those rejected/modified, please let me know.
array upper/lower bound: missing doc updates, otherwise seems okay.
\pset pager
> + /* I use CMD_UPDATE, because no CMD_MOVE or the like
> +exists, and I would like to provide the same
> +kind of info as CMD_UPDATE */
> + UpdateCommandInfo(CMD_UPDATE, 0, -1*estate->es_processed);
I do not
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Has the patch that makes MOVE return number of rows actually moved
>> (analoguous to UPDATE and DELETE) been properly submitted to patches ?
> I know MOVE had fixes in 7.1. I don't know of any outstanding MOVE
> bugs.
It wasn't a bug, it was a featur
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Philip Warner wrote:
>
> Is anybody planning to fix the problem with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT...
> in which the constraints are not applied to child tables?
>
I'm working on the check constraint case (didn't realize that
those inherited since unique, primary key and fore
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ie. The CHECK constraints inherit only at the time of table creation. I
> think this is a bug in ALTER TABLE for CHECK constraints.
More like an "unimplemented feature" ;-).
After thinking for a moment, I believe the only real gotcha that could
arise
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is anybody planning to fix the problem with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT...
> in which the constraints are not applied to child tables?
AFAIK no one is looking at it presently (although Stephan Szabo has
probably thought about it). If you want to tackle
At 09:36 9/05/01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> Is anybody planning to fix the problem with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT...
>> in which the constraints are not applied to child tables?
>
>I thought we had not figured out how to inherit those, or at least
>certain constraints like UNIQUE. We do
Is anybody planning to fix the problem with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT...
in which the constraints are not applied to child tables?
Philip Warner| __---_
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |/ -
18 matches
Mail list logo