The 14 december I submitted a patch that implements named function
arguments. So far no one have said anything about that. It would be nice
if someone could look at it and either reject, accept, put on queue, or
anything else.
The patch is very big (400k), but most of that size comes from trival
Tom Lane wrote:
I have committed a fix into 7.5devel to do this properly. I think this
is the last case wherein btree is unnecessarily inefficient for large
numbers of equal keys.
Any chance to have it on 7.4.1 ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---(end of
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
The 14 december I submitted a patch that implements named function
arguments. So far no one have said anything about that. It would be nice
if someone could look at it and either reject, accept, put on queue, or
anything else.
The patch is very big (400k), but most
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Uh, I don't remember seeing your patch, and I don't have it in my
mailbox? Which email list did you send it to? Perhaps the email is
stuck waiting for Marc to accept it.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-12/msg00176.php
--
/Dennis
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I have committed a fix into 7.5devel to do this properly. I think this
is the last case wherein btree is unnecessarily inefficient for large
numbers of equal keys.
Any chance to have it on 7.4.1 ?
No. It's inadequately tested to go
Dennis Bjorklund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The 14 december I submitted a patch that implements named function
arguments. So far no one have said anything about that.
I have it on my to-look-at list, but I've been too busy trying to get
7.4.1 ready to do anything with pending patches.
Would this be at all useful?
Someone mentioned that the 'fees' were relatively high though ... that you
lose a fair amount off the top *to* Sourceforge?
If we were going to do this, I would suggest just going right through
paypal.
Marc G. Fournier
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Would this be at all useful?
Someone mentioned that the 'fees' were relatively high though ... that you
lose a fair amount off the top *to* Sourceforge?
If we were going to do this, I would suggest just going right through
paypal.
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Would this be at all useful?
Someone mentioned that the 'fees' were relatively high though ... that you
lose a fair amount off the top *to* Sourceforge?
If we were going to do this, I would suggest just
will do a general announce Monday afternoon, but if someone can test and
confirm that I haven't missed anything, that would be great...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
will do a general announce Monday afternoon, but if someone can test and
confirm that I haven't missed anything, that would be great...
Looks solid from here ...
regards, tom lane
---(end of
Tom Lane wrote:
Dennis Bjorklund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The 14 december I submitted a patch that implements named function
arguments. So far no one have said anything about that.
I have it on my to-look-at list, but I've been too busy trying to get
7.4.1 ready to do anything with
Hey Tom,
With regards to our previous conversation about dropping columns now
properly dropping indexes that contain predicates that reference that
column, I now find it a bit disconcerting that such indexes are
automatically removed when the column is dropped, instead of requiring a
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The thing is, if you drop a column that is used in a normal index, yes
the index is now useless - drop it.
However, since you can have (and I have) indexes like this:
CREATE INDEX asdf ON table (a, b, c) WHERE d IS NOT NULL;
If I drop column
14 matches
Mail list logo
