On 2011-02-28 8:20 AM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Tiikkajamarko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 2011-02-24 6:40 PM, I wrote:
I am planning on working on the documentation this weekend.
And here's my attempt. The language is a bit poor at some places but I
can't think of anything
On 2011-02-24 6:40 PM, I wrote:
I am planning on working on the documentation this weekend.
And here's my attempt. The language is a bit poor at some places but I
can't think of anything better.
I tried to be more strict about using subquery when talking about
WITHs in general since
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 2011-02-24 6:40 PM, I wrote:
I am planning on working on the documentation this weekend.
And here's my attempt. The language is a bit poor at some places but I
can't think of anything better.
Thanks, will work on this next.
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 2011-02-24 6:40 PM, I wrote:
I am planning on working on the documentation this weekend.
And here's my attempt. The language is a bit poor at some places but I
can't think of anything better.
Applied after some rather heavy
On 2011-02-26 4:41 AM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Tiikkajamarko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
One thing bothers me though: what was the reason for requiring a
RETURNING clause for data-modifying statements in WITH?
That test was in your patch, no? I moved the code to another place
but
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:52:40AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Yay! I'm excited about this, particularly the possible pipelining
stuff, where you can do WITH (DELETE .. RETURNING
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 2011-02-24 6:37 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
OK, I will make those adjustments. Are you going to do more work on the
documentation part of the patch? I can stick to working on the code
part meanwhile, if you are.
I am planning on working
On 2011-02-26 2:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I've gone ahead and applied the code portion of the patch, with
modifications as per discussion, and other editorialization.
Thanks a lot!
One thing bothers me though: what was the reason for requiring a
RETURNING clause for data-modifying statements in
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 2011-02-26 2:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I've gone ahead and applied the code portion of the patch, with
modifications as per discussion, and other editorialization.
Thanks a lot!
One thing bothers me though: what was the reason for
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:20:48AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The wCTE patch refers to the feature it's adding as DML WITH. I'm
still pretty unhappy with that terminology. In my view of the world,
DML includes SELECT as well as INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. The wikipedia
entry about the term
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:35:30AM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
The best idea I have at the moment is to spell out data modifying
command (or statement) rather than relying on the acronym.
In the code, we could change hasDmlWith to
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 2011-02-24 6:37 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
OK, I will make those adjustments. Are you going to do more work on the
documentation part of the patch? I can stick to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Yay! I'm excited about this, particularly the possible pipelining
stuff, where you can do WITH (DELETE .. RETURNING ..) INSERT ... and
have it be like cool and fast and stuff.
Or at least I hope you can do that.
It's gonna need some work yet. As
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Yay! I'm excited about this, particularly the possible pipelining
stuff, where you can do WITH (DELETE .. RETURNING ..) INSERT ... and
have it be like cool and fast and stuff.
Or
The wCTE patch refers to the feature it's adding as DML WITH. I'm
still pretty unhappy with that terminology. In my view of the world,
DML includes SELECT as well as INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. The wikipedia
entry about the term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Manipulation_Language
agrees that
On 2011-02-24 6:20 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
The wCTE patch refers to the feature it's adding as DML WITH. I'm
still pretty unhappy with that terminology. In my view of the world,
DML includes SELECT as well as INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. The wikipedia
entry about the term
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 2011-02-24 6:20 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
The best idea I have at the moment is to spell out data modifying
command (or statement) rather than relying on the acronym.
In the code, we could change hasDmlWith to hasModifyingWith, for
On 2011-02-24 6:37 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
OK, I will make those adjustments. Are you going to do more work on the
documentation part of the patch? I can stick to working on the code
part meanwhile, if you are.
I am planning on working on the documentation this weekend.
Regards,
Marko
On 02/24/2011 11:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
The wCTE patch refers to the feature it's adding as DML WITH. I'm
still pretty unhappy with that terminology. In my view of the world,
DML includes SELECT as well as INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. The wikipedia
entry about the term
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The wCTE patch refers to the feature it's adding as DML WITH. I'm
still pretty unhappy with that terminology. In my view of the world,
DML includes SELECT as well as INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. The wikipedia
entry about the term
On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
The best idea I have at the moment is to spell out data modifying
command (or statement) rather than relying on the acronym.
In the code, we could change hasDmlWith to hasModifyingWith, for
example. The error messages could read like
21 matches
Mail list logo
