On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 09:49:30PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 05:08:54PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
After testing this feature, I noticed that FORCE_NULL and
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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 t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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
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
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.
2014-03-05 23:27 GMT+09:00 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
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
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Ian Lawrence Barwick barw...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-05 23:27 GMT+09:00 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
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
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com 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
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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
On 03/03/2014 06:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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
2014-03-02 8:26 GMT+09:00 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
On 01/29/2014 10:59 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
2014/1/29 Ian Lawrence Barwick barw...@gmail.com:
2014-01-29 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
On 01/28/2014 05:55 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
Hi Payal
Many thanks
On 03/02/2014 10:06 PM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
2014-03-02 8:26 GMT+09:00 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
On 01/29/2014 10:59 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
2014/1/29 Ian Lawrence Barwick barw...@gmail.com:
2014-01-29 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
On 01/28/2014 05:55 AM, Ian
On 01/29/2014 10:59 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
2014/1/29 Ian Lawrence Barwick barw...@gmail.com:
2014-01-29 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
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
2014/1/29 Ian Lawrence Barwick barw...@gmail.com:
2014-01-29 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
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
2013-11-01 Payal Singh pa...@omniti.com:
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
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
2014-01-29 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
