Re: [HACKERS] Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE?

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014, Robert Haas [via PostgreSQL] < ml-node+s1045698n5805857...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Tom Lane <[hidden email] > > wrote: > > >> I can see two answers. Answer #1 is > >> that the column t

Re: [HACKERS] idle_in_transaction_timeout

Vik Fearing wrote > On 06/03/2014 03:30 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: >> At 2014-06-03 15:06:11 +0200, > vik.fearing@ > wrote: >>> This patch implements a timeout for broken clients that idle in >>> transaction. >> I think this is a nice feature, but I suggest that (at the very least) >> the GUC

Re: [HACKERS] idle_in_transaction_timeout

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Josh Berkus [via PostgreSQL] < ml-node+s1045698n5805933...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > On 06/03/2014 02:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Josh Berkus <[hidden email] > > writes: > >> Out of curiosity, how much harder woul

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, we need an initdb

Robert Haas wrote > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Tom Lane < > tgl@.pa > > wrote: >> I just noticed that we had not one, but two commits in 9.4 that added >> fields to pg_control. And neither one changed PG_CONTROL_VERSION. >> This is inexcusable sloppiness on the part of the committers involv

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, we need an initdb

Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote > On 06/04/2014 08:56 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> On 06/04/2014 11:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> I think we could possibly ship 9.4 without fixing this, but it would be >>> imprudent. Anyone think differently? >>> >>> Of course, if we do fix this then the door ope

Re: [HACKERS] configure does not check for bison or flex

Eric L wrote > I am installing postgresql from source on 64 bit Ubuntu 14.04 and when I > run the ./configure script, it is successful, but when I run make it fails > with an error: > > "ERROR: `flex' is missing on your system. It is needed to create the file > `bootscanner.c'. You can either ge

Re: [HACKERS] "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension

Ian Barwick wrote > Hi, > > The JDBC API provides the getGeneratedKeys() method as a way of retrieving > primary key values without the need to explicitly specify the primary key > column(s). This is a widely-used feature, however the implementation has > significant > performance drawbacks. > >

Re: [HACKERS] "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension

David G Johnston wrote > > Ian Barwick wrote >> Hi, >> >> The JDBC API provides the getGeneratedKeys() method as a way of >> retrieving >> primary key values without the need to explicitly specify the primary key >> column(s). This is a widely-us

<    2   3   4   5   6   7