2011/8/12 Shigeru Hanada :
> (2011/08/12 1:05), Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue ago 11 11:50:40 -0400 2011:
2011/8/9 Shigeru Hanada:
> I'd like to pick #3, and also change per-column options f
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue ago 11 11:50:40 -0400 2011:
>> 2011/8/9 Shigeru Hanada :
>
>> >>> (3) OPTIONS clause style
>> >>> Show FDW options as they were in OPTIONS clause. Each option is shown
>> >>> as "key 'value'", and
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue ago 11 11:50:40 -0400 2011:
> 2011/8/9 Shigeru Hanada :
> >>> (3) OPTIONS clause style
> >>> Show FDW options as they were in OPTIONS clause. Each option is shown
> >>> as "key 'value'", and delimited with ','.
> >>>
> >>> Ex)
> >>> FDW Options:
2011/8/9 Shigeru Hanada :
> (2011/08/09 1:16), Robert Haas wrote:
>> 2011/8/8 Shigeru Hanada:
> Currently table-level options are showin in result of \det+ command
> (only verbose mode), in same style as fdw and foreign servers.
>
> But \d is more popular for table describing, so mo
(2011/08/09 1:16), Robert Haas wrote:
> 2011/8/8 Shigeru Hanada:
Currently table-level options are showin in result of \det+ command
(only verbose mode), in same style as fdw and foreign servers.
But \d is more popular for table describing, so moving table-level
options fro
2011/8/8 Shigeru Hanada :
>>> Currently table-level options are showin in result of \det+ command
>>> (only verbose mode), in same style as fdw and foreign servers.
>>>
>>> But \d is more popular for table describing, so moving table-level
>>> options from \det+ to \d might be better. Thoughts?
>
(2011/07/29 17:37), Shigeru Hanada wrote:
> I also attached a rebased version of force_not_null patch, which adds
> force_not_null option support to file_fdw. This is a use case of
> per-column FDW option.
[just for redirection]
Robert has committed only per_column_option patch. So I posted
forc
Sorry, I've missed sending copy to list, so I quoted off-list discussion.
> On Aug 5, 2011, at 7:59 PM, Shigeru Hanada
wrote:
>
>> 2011/8/6 Robert Haas:
>>> Done.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> Incidentally, I notice that if you do:
>>>
>>> \d some_foreign_table
>>>
>>> ...the table-level options are not di
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2011/7/29 Shigeru Hanada :
>> Here is a rebased version of per-column FDW options patch. I've
>> proposed this patch in last CF, but it was marked as returned with
>> feedback. So I would like to propose in next CF 2011-09. I already
>> mov
2011/7/29 Shigeru Hanada :
> Here is a rebased version of per-column FDW options patch. I've
> proposed this patch in last CF, but it was marked as returned with
> feedback. So I would like to propose in next CF 2011-09. I already
> moved CF item into new topic "SQL/MED" of CF 2011-09.
I did a
10 matches
Mail list logo
