Re: [HACKERS] request for sql3 compliance for the update command

2003-03-08 Thread Jordan Henderson
Dave, Justin, I have several Informix clients who will be moving to a Postgresql/Aubit4gl solution at some point. The Informix line is, for them, a dead end. One way or another the backend will become Postgresql. Because of the number of SQL statements, I would encourage support where possible

Re: [HACKERS] Who puts the Windows binaries on the FTP server?

2003-03-08 Thread Merlin Moncure
Justin Clift wrote: This is the 'proof of concept' cygwin windows build. Strangely, I have a newer build than the one on the ftp server. Is there a binary version of postgres with Jan's patch available? Uh Oh. When you say newer version, what gives the feeling of it being newer?

Re: [HACKERS] regression failure in CVS HEAD

2003-03-08 Thread Rod Taylor
Yipes. I have not been running the parallel tests (my habit is to run make installcheck, instead) but there is clearly something busted. I got a bunch of failures similar to yours in my first attempt with make check on HPUX --- see attached. Any ideas on what the cause might be? No.

Re: [HACKERS] regression failure in CVS HEAD

2003-03-08 Thread Tom Lane
I said: Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: About 1 in every 5 runs of the (parallel) regression tests are failing for me with CVS HEAD: the triggers, inherit, vacuum, sanity_check, and misc tests fail. I can make the failures occur fairly consistently by running make check over and over

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] division by zero

2003-03-08 Thread Merlin Moncure
Tom Lane wrote: I checked into this, and indeed OS X 10.2 is behaving funny: integer divide by zero doesn't raise any signal, it just returns a bogus answer. They're within their rights to do so according to the ANSI C spec (wherein division by zero is stated to have undefined behavior).

Re: [HACKERS] regression failure in CVS HEAD

2003-03-08 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: I've spent the morning trying to reproduce this, without success. After a make maintainer-clean, cvs update, full rebuild cycle, I cannot get anything funny to happen in make check under HPUX, RH Linux 8.0, or OS X. I'm a bit hesitant to write it off as a build problem, because

Re: [HACKERS] regression failure in CVS HEAD

2003-03-08 Thread Neil Conway
On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 12:41, Tom Lane wrote: Can you still reproduce the problem after a clean rebuild? No -- I ran cvs update, make clean, followed by 10 runs of the regression tests but I didn't get any similar failures. I suppose we can just regard it as a build problem, then? Not sure what

Re: [HACKERS] regression failure in CVS HEAD

2003-03-08 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suppose we can just regard it as a build problem, then? Not sure what the actual culprit was, though... I'm mystified too. But unless we see it again, I think we have to write it off as a build error. Do you use --enable-depend when configuring? I

[HACKERS] SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

2003-03-08 Thread Joe Conway
I'd like to implement SQL99/200x ARRAY support (well, at least the basics). Does anyone have objections to the following grammar/semantics? === Per SQL200x - examples === create table

Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

2003-03-08 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: select ARRAY[1,2,3]; result '{1,2,3}' The array type is determined how? I'd like this syntax better if there were a way to force the choice of array type... select ARRAY[(select oid from pg_class order by relname)]; result is array of all the oid's

Re: [HACKERS] Who puts the Windows binaries on the FTP server?

2003-03-08 Thread Justin Clift
Merlin Moncure wrote: Justin Clift wrote: snip The timestamp of the file on the ftp server is 1/28/03. The timestamp of file I previously dl'd (which I collected from whatever link you posted on this list) is 2/3/03. However I downloaded the older version and they are the same (same number of

Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

2003-03-08 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: select ARRAY[1,2,3]; result '{1,2,3}' The array type is determined how? I'd like this syntax better if there were a way to force the choice of array type... What about: select integer ARRAY[1,2,3]; result '{1,2,3}'::integer[] select

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] division by zero

2003-03-08 Thread Tom Lane
Eric B. Ridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: select 1/0; fails as expected on my x86 Linux box, so yer right, it's just my little Mac. I switched because Mac's can divide by zero. I checked into this, and indeed OS X 10.2 is behaving funny: integer divide by zero doesn't raise any signal, it just

Re: [HACKERS] Who puts the Windows binaries on the FTP server?

2003-03-08 Thread Dave Page
It's rumoured that Justin Clift once said: It's a simplified installation package of 7.3.1 with cygwin. Put it together so we can get a feel for the packaging issues we'll need to take into account for the proper release of a 7.4 Windows version. Yeah, but it won't will it? You're seeing all

Re: [HACKERS] website charset

2003-03-08 Thread Dave Page
It's rumoured that Dennis Björklund once said: There is no declaration of charset in the main webpage. Something like meta content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type would be nice. What is worse is that there are several charsets used. In the International part I have to