On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Commit ea69a0dead5128c421140dc53fac165ba4af8520 has bumped the hash
> index version and obviates the need for backward compatibility code
> added by commit 293e24e507838733aba4748b514536af2d39d7f2. The same
> has been mentioned in the commit me
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Thomas Munro wrote:
>>
>>> Recall that transition tables can be specified for statement-level
>>> triggers AND row-level triggers. If you specify them for row-level
>>> triggers, t
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I think that makes sense. Modified it to read: "A statement that targets
> a parent table in a inheritance or partitioning hierarchy..." in the
> attached updated patch.
LGTM. Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I think that makes sense. Modified it to read: "A statement that targets
>> a parent table in a inheritance or partitioning hierarchy..." in the
>> attached updated patch.
>
> LGTM. Co
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Hmm. DB2 has transition tables (invented them maybe?) and it allows
> OLD/NEW TABLE on row-level triggers:
>
> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEPGG_10.1.0/com.ibm.db2.luw.admin.dbobj.doc/doc/t0020236.html
Yeah, my impression
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:07 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Thanks for bringing it to the notice. The above code should follow what's
> done for other fields that are initialized by
> RelationCacheInitializePhase3(). Although, since none of the entries in
> the relcache init file are partitioned table
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> +A statement that targets a parent table in a inheritance or partitioning
>
> A tiny typo: s/a inheritance/an inheritance/
Now he tells me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
At Mon, 1 May 2017 11:34:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote in
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > But the above also leaves a bug so I sent another patch to fix
> > it. The attched patch restores the 9.6's beavior of looking up
> > .pgpass file in the same manner to the
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran
wrote:
> Following recent removal of support to store password in plain text,
> modified the code to
>
> 1. Remove "PASSWORD_TYPE_PLAINTEXT" macro
> 2. Instead of using "get_password_type" to retrieve the encryption method
> AND to check if t
On 5/7/17 19:43, Andres Freund wrote:
> 3. Keep the catalog, make ALTER properly transactional, blocking
>concurrent nextval()s. This resolves the issue that nextval() can't
>see the changed definition of the sequence.
This was the intended choice.
I think I have more clarity about the di
On 2017/05/10 12:59, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> +A statement that targets a parent table in a inheritance or partitioning
>>
>> A tiny typo: s/a inheritance/an inheritance/
>
> Now he tells me.
Thanks both.
Regards,
Amit
--
Sent via pg
Hello, Robert
I found a wrong sentence here in the doc. I'm sorry, this is what I asked you
to add...
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/libpq-connect.html#libpq-paramkeywords
connect_timeout
Maximum wait for connection, in seconds (write as a decimal integer string).
Zero or not sp
On 05/09/2017 09:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
>> (After extensive trial and error) Turns out it's not quite that, it's
>> the kill_kill stuff. I think for now we should just disable it on the
>> platform. That means not running tests 7
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing
>> an installation containing hash indexes. I think a minimum requirement is
>> that it succeed and be able to s
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Commit ea69a0dead5128c421140dc53fac165ba4af8520 has bumped the hash
>> index version and obviates the need for backward compatibility code
>> added by commit 293e24e507838733aba4748b514536a
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:30:45PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 07:07:26AM +, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:28:53AM +0200, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On 23 April 2017 at 01:10, Petr Jelinek
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > The time based lag trac
At Mon, 1 May 2017 15:48:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote in
> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Having said that, the behavior stated in $subject does sound wrong.
> >
> >> I'm not sure. My understa
101 - 117 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
