Hi,
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> There is a new compiler warning coming from this, I believe:
I don't get this warning here, at least not in -O2, and I did forget to
make maintainer-clean then rebuild with -O0 just in case gcc is now
complaining about something else. I wish this situation could be
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> so - cannot be a solution define CONSTRAINT_TABLE field - constaint
> names in table are unique.
Adding a table column, and a schema column, would be ideal. Those would
all be part of the PK and not null'able, but then we wouldn't
necessairly alw
2012/12/30 Stephen Frost :
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> so - cannot be a solution define CONSTRAINT_TABLE field - constaint
>> names in table are unique.
>
> Adding a table column, and a schema column, would be ideal. Those would
> all be part of the PK and not null'able,
Hello Stephen
2012/12/29 Stephen Frost :
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> ok, so what is proposed solution?
>
> My recommendation would be to match what glibc's printf does.
>
>> I see two possibilities - a) applying my current patch - although it
>> is not fully correct, b) n
2012/12/30 Pavel Stehule :
> Hello Stephen
>
> 2012/12/29 Stephen Frost :
>> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>> ok, so what is proposed solution?
>>
>> My recommendation would be to match what glibc's printf does.
>>
>>> I see two possibilities - a) applying my current patch - alt
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> It is a strange power of two to be appearing there. I can follow your
> reasoning for why this could be a bit flipping error. There's no sign of
> that elsewhere though, no other crashes under load. I'm using this server
> here because it's w
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm suggesting that we could fix this by emitting something that forces
>> the right alias to be assigned to t2.q:
>>
>> SELECT t1.x, t1.y, t2.z
>> FROM t1
>> JOIN t2 AS t2(x,z)
>> USING (x);
> Sneaky. I didn't know that
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I found one issue - if I disallow mixing positional and ordered style
> I break compatibility with previous implementation.
Can you elaborate? In the previous example, an error was returned when
mixing (not a terribly good one, but still
On Sun, 2012-12-30 at 13:18 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > There is a new compiler warning coming from this, I believe:
>
> I don't get this warning here, at least not in -O2, and I did forget to
> make maintainer-clean then rebuild with -O0 just in case gcc is now
Hello
2012/12/31 Stephen Frost :
> Pavel,
>
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> I found one issue - if I disallow mixing positional and ordered style
>> I break compatibility with previous implementation.
>
> Can you elaborate? In the previous example, an error was returned when
On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 23:09 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 15:13 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> > The second one is new in 9.3 with the URL syntax:
> > It is not possible to specify "user" and "password"
> > in the LDAP URL.
>
> That sounds like a bug to me. I'll investigate
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Pavan Deolasee (pavan.deola...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Kevin Grittner
>> > That makes sense to me. The reason I didn't make that change when I
>> > added the serializable special case to pg_dump was that it se
Hi all
For some time it's been impossible to build PostgreSQL on 64-bit Windows
by following the documentation's advice, as the version of Flex we
distribute on the PostgreSQL FTP site does not work on 64-bit Windows
hosts. See this 2011 message (
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-
13 matches
Mail list logo
