On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 03:35:12PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This patch allows ECPG to build on a VPATH build. I didn't commit it
> just because I don't have a non-VPATH build to make sure it still works ...
Worked for me on a normal build too. Applied.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Mic
1. a patch is generated by the program "diff"
2. before we do anything, as Tom Lane says, we need verification of the
problem, preferably in writing from Microsoft.
cheers
andrew
dror wrote:
1.
When saying:
"Please submit the changes as patches, instead of the whole files".
Hi,
here's the next version. Changes:
- Extended documentation
- Extending permissions to new sequences
ALTER TABLE tab ADD col type GENERATED AS IDENTITY
didn't work as advertised, now it seems to.
- Test case was also extended.
- Previously introduced memory leaks were plugged. Really.
Now
When saying:"Please submit the changes as patches, instead of the whole files". Do you mean to send each file seperately? or other issues as well?
The change was test and design for 8.1.14, but as far as I see it is also true for any other version.Of course merge is needed in case that the fi
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am more than somewhat perplexed as to why the NUL device should be a
> security risk ... what are they thinking??
Frankly, I don't believe it; even Microsoft can't be that stupid.
And I can't find any suggestion that they've done this in a google
sear
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
dror wrote:
There were two options to solve this issue:
Create a new file , grant a write permission for the Postgres user
and redirect the output to that file. (EnterpriseDB use this method)
Canceling the redirection at all.
I choose the second option and omit the
dror wrote:
> There were two options to solve this issue:
>
> Create a new file , grant a write permission for the Postgres user
> and redirect the output to that file. (EnterpriseDB use this method)
> Canceling the redirection at all.
>
> I choose the second option and omit the redirection in
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 22:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This issue is closed, right?
>
> We've agreed we need two functions, but it's not done yet. Seems pretty
> trivial though ...
Just back from India. I'll work on this tonight.
--
Simon Riggs
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was thinking, isn't it a lot cleaner to define the functions to use
> OUT parameters instead of having to define a custom type for each?
Not really --- it's a bit less notation maybe, but if he's got it
written like that already, I see no need to chan
