On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 05:08:54PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > >> On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >>> After testing this feature, I
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 05:08:54PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan writes:
> >> On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>> After testing this feature, I noticed that FORCE_NULL and
> >>> FORCE_NOT_NULL can both be speci
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 09:49:30PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > I have picked this up and committed the patch. Thanks to all.
> Sorry for coming after the battle, but while looking at what has been
> committed I noticed that copy2.sql is
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> After testing this feature, I noticed that FORCE_NULL and
>>> FORCE_NOT_NULL can both be specified with COPY on the same column.
>
>> Strictly they are not actually cont
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> After testing this feature, I noticed that FORCE_NULL and
>> FORCE_NOT_NULL can both be specified with COPY on the same column.
> Strictly they are not actually contradictory, since FORCE NULL relates
> to quoted null str
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> So if we specify both this produces the exact opposite of the default,
> default being an empty string inserted for a quoted empty string and
> NULL inserted for a non-quoted empty string. So yes I'm fine with a
> note on the docs about tha
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> 2014-03-05 23:27 GMT+09:00 Andrew Dunstan :
>>
>> On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>
>>> After testing this feature, I noticed that FORCE_NULL and
>>> FORCE_NOT_NULL can both be specified with COPY on the same column.
>
2014-03-05 23:27 GMT+09:00 Andrew Dunstan :
>
> On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> After testing this feature, I noticed that FORCE_NULL and
>> FORCE_NOT_NULL can both be specified with COPY on the same column.
>> This does not seem correct. The attached patch adds some more error
On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
After testing this feature, I noticed that FORCE_NULL and
FORCE_NOT_NULL can both be specified with COPY on the same column.
This does not seem correct. The attached patch adds some more error
handling, and a regression test case for that.
Stric
After testing this feature, I noticed that FORCE_NULL and
FORCE_NOT_NULL can both be specified with COPY on the same column.
This does not seem correct. The attached patch adds some more error
handling, and a regression test case for that.
Regards,
--
Michael
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/copy
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I have picked this up and committed the patch. Thanks to all.
Sorry for coming after the battle, but while looking at what has been
committed I noticed that copy2.sql is actually doing twice in a row
the same test:
COPY forcetest (a, b, c) FR
On 03/03/2014 06:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That difference actually made the file_fdw regression results plain
wrong,
in my view, in that they expected a quoted empty string to be turned to
null
even when the null string was something e
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> That difference actually made the file_fdw regression results plain
>>> wrong,
>>> in my view, in that they expected a quoted empty string to be turned to
>>> null
>>> even when the null string was something else.
>>>
>>> I've adjusted this
On 03/02/2014 10:06 PM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
2014-03-02 8:26 GMT+09:00 Andrew Dunstan :
On 01/29/2014 10:59 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
2014/1/29 Ian Lawrence Barwick :
2014-01-29 Andrew Dunstan :
On 01/28/2014 05:55 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
Hi Payal
Many thanks for the
2014-03-02 8:26 GMT+09:00 Andrew Dunstan :
>
> On 01/29/2014 10:59 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
>>
>> 2014/1/29 Ian Lawrence Barwick :
>>>
>>> 2014-01-29 Andrew Dunstan :
On 01/28/2014 05:55 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
>
>
> Hi Payal
>
> Many thanks for the revi
On 01/29/2014 10:59 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
2014/1/29 Ian Lawrence Barwick :
2014-01-29 Andrew Dunstan :
On 01/28/2014 05:55 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
Hi Payal
Many thanks for the review, and my apologies for not getting back to
you earlier.
Updated version of the patch attac
2014/1/29 Ian Lawrence Barwick :
> 2014-01-29 Andrew Dunstan :
>>
>> On 01/28/2014 05:55 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Payal
>>>
>>> Many thanks for the review, and my apologies for not getting back to
>>> you earlier.
>>>
>>> Updated version of the patch attached with suggested co
2014-01-29 Andrew Dunstan :
>
> On 01/28/2014 05:55 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Payal
>>
>> Many thanks for the review, and my apologies for not getting back to
>> you earlier.
>>
>> Updated version of the patch attached with suggested corrections.
>
> On a very quick glance, I see
On 01/28/2014 05:55 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
Hi Payal
Many thanks for the review, and my apologies for not getting back to
you earlier.
Updated version of the patch attached with suggested corrections.
On a very quick glance, I see that you have still not made adjustments
to contri
2013-11-01 Payal Singh :
> The post was made before I subscribed to the mailing list, so posting my
> review separately. The link to the original patch mail is
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB8KJ=jS-Um4TGwenS5wLUfJK6K4rNOm_V6GRUj+tcKekL2=g...@mail.gmail.com
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch im
20 matches
Mail list logo
