Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2015-09-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 09:40:10AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > > > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > > > > >> Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see > a

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2015-09-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > > > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > > > > >> Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see > any > > >> discussion around it. > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2015-09-03 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > > >> Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see any > >> discussion around it. > > > > Contributors whose patches are getting committed should really subscr

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2015-09-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > >> Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see any >> discussion around it. > > Contributors whose patches are getting committed should really subscribe > to pgsql-committers. I would

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2015-08-26 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > > Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see any > > discussion around it. > > Contributors whose patches are getting committed should really subscribe > to pgsql-committers. > O

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2015-08-26 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-08-26 16:24:31 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see any > > discussion around it. > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/23918.1409010...@sss.pgh.pa.us Tha

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2015-08-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see any > discussion around it. Contributors whose patches are getting committed should really subscribe to pgsql-committers. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2015-08-26 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-08-26 16:24:31 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see any > discussion around it. http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/23918.1409010...@sss.pgh.pa.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2015-08-26 Thread Thom Brown
On 26 August 2015 at 20:24, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:04:50PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:12:47PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2015-08-26 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:04:50PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:12:47PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > >> Yes, you remember well. I will have to fi

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-08-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:04:50PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:12:47PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> Yes, you remember well. I will have to find a different way for > > >> pg_upgrade to call a no-op ALTER TA

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-08-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:12:47PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Yes, you remember well. I will have to find a different way for > >> pg_upgrade to call a no-op ALTER TABLE, which is fine. > > > > Looking at the ALTER TABLE options, I am go

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-08-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Yes, you remember well. I will have to find a different way for >> pg_upgrade to call a no-op ALTER TABLE, which is fine. > > Looking at the ALTER TABLE options, I am going to put this check in a > !IsBinaryUpgrade block so pg_upgrade can s

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-08-22 Thread Andres Freund
On August 22, 2014 8:33:57 PM CEST, Bruce Momjian wrote: >On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:53:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:27:02AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruce Momjian >wrote: >> > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:11:46AM -0400, Rob

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-08-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:53:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:27:02AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:11:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Michae

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-08-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:27:02AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:11:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier > >> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Fabrízi

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-08-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:11:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-08-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:11:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas > >> wrote: > >>> Well, it's fairly harmless

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-03-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Well, it's fairly harmless, but it might not be a bad idea to tighten that >>> up. >> The attached patch ti

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-03-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Well, it's fairly harmless, but it might not be a bad idea to tighten that >> up. > The attached patch tighten that up. Hm... It might be interesting to include it in 9.4 I

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-03-17 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Shouldn't the "ALTER" statements below raise an exception? > > > > fabrizio=# CREATE TABLE foo(bar SERIAL PRIMARY KEY); > > CREATE TABLE > > > > fabrizio

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug

2014-03-13 Thread David Johnston
fabriziomello wrote > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Euler Taveira < > euler@.com > > > wrote: >> >> On 13-03-2014 00:11, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: >> > Shouldn't the "ALTER" statements below raise an exception? >> > >> For consistency, yes. Who cares? I mean, there is no harm in resettin

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-03-13 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Euler Taveira wrote: > > On 13-03-2014 00:11, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > Shouldn't the "ALTER" statements below raise an exception? > > > For consistency, yes. Who cares? I mean, there is no harm in resetting > an unrecognized parameter. Have in mind that

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-03-13 Thread Euler Taveira
On 13-03-2014 00:11, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > Shouldn't the "ALTER" statements below raise an exception? > For consistency, yes. Who cares? I mean, there is no harm in resetting an unrecognized parameter. Have in mind that tighten it up could break scripts. In general, I'm in favor of vali

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-03-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > Hi all, > > Shouldn't the "ALTER" statements below raise an exception? > > fabrizio=# CREATE TABLE foo(bar SERIAL PRIMARY KEY); > CREATE TABLE > > fabrizio=# SELECT relname, reloptions FROM pg_class WHERE relname ~ '^foo'; >rel

[HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2014-03-12 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Hi all, Shouldn't the "ALTER" statements below raise an exception? fabrizio=# CREATE TABLE foo(bar SERIAL PRIMARY KEY); CREATE TABLE fabrizio=# SELECT relname, reloptions FROM pg_class WHERE relname ~ '^foo'; relname | reloptions -+ foo | foo_bar_seq | foo

Re: [HACKERS] is this a bug?

2010-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
"David E. Wheeler" writes: > On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> create type y as (c char, n int); >>> select ('a', NULL)::y = ('a', NULL)::y; -- TRUE >>> select ('a', NULL) = ('a', NULL); -- NULL >> The latter gets simplified to ('a' = 'a') AND (NULL = NULL). >> The former doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] is this a bug?

2010-01-17 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> create type y as (c char, n int); >> select ('a', NULL)::y = ('a', NULL)::y; -- TRUE >> select ('a', NULL) = ('a', NULL); -- NULL > >> I would expect those to evaluate to the same thing. > > The latter gets simplified to ('a' = 'a') AND (NULL =

Re: [HACKERS] is this a bug?

2010-01-17 Thread Jeff Davis
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 18:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > The former might be closer to the spec's expectations but I'm not > totally sure about it. I suppose that people using NULLs should expect the unexpected ;) I don't have strong feelings about it, I just wanted to raise the issue. Regards,

Re: [HACKERS] is this a bug?

2010-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Davis writes: > create type y as (c char, n int); > select ('a', NULL)::y = ('a', NULL)::y; -- TRUE > select ('a', NULL) = ('a', NULL); -- NULL > I would expect those to evaluate to the same thing. The latter gets simplified to ('a' = 'a') AND (NULL = NULL). The former doesn't --- it

[HACKERS] is this a bug?

2010-01-17 Thread Jeff Davis
create type y as (c char, n int); select ('a', NULL)::y = ('a', NULL)::y; -- TRUE select ('a', NULL) = ('a', NULL); -- NULL I would expect those to evaluate to the same thing. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make chan

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2005-01-25 Thread Tom Lane
"Matthew T. O'Connor" writes: > Now, I know I can specify a constraint name inside the alter command, > but I still expected this to work. It does, in 8.0. regression=# create table foo (id1 int, id2 int, id3 int); CREATE TABLE regression=# ALTER TABLE foo ADD unique (id1,id2); NOTICE: ALTER T

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2005-01-25 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:43:16PM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > foo=# ALTER TABLE foo ADD unique (id1,id3); > NOTICE: ALTER TABLE / ADD UNIQUE will create implicit index > "foo_id1_key" for table "foo" > ERROR: relation "foo_id1_key" already exists 8.0.0 handles this situation better:

[HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2005-01-25 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
I think this may have been discussed before but I found this a bit surprising: foo=# SELECT version(); version - PostgreS

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2001-06-08 Thread Tom Lane
"Roberto Abalde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've found that some two functions in /src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c > have side effects. No kidding ;-). The planner is full of side-effects on data structures. Both of the changes you mention are intentional. regard

[HACKERS] Is this a bug?

2001-06-08 Thread Roberto Abalde
Hi people, I've found that some two functions in /src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c have side effects. First, I've added two pprints before and after line 89-90 like this. pprint(parse->rtable); /* primary planning entry point (may recurse for subqueries) */ result_plan = subquery_planner

[HACKERS] Is this a bug in 7.0.2

2001-04-03 Thread Steven Vajdic
Dear all, I've migrated from RedHat6.2/PHP3.0/PostgreSQL6.5 to Mandrake/PHP4.0/Postgres7.0.2 successfully as far as pg_dump database_name is concerned. I am still running BOTH versions on two computers. PostgreSQL6.5 does not produce any error using math function "integer (float_expression)" (