Hi,
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
>>> and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
>>> forthcoming.
>
>> Well, unless someone is going to co
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * The schema now uses foreign keys to more accurately reflect a finacial DDL
Addition of foreign key checking will certainly impact performance
significantly.
> * The history table now has a primary key that uses a serial
Ditto.
> * The respective
2006/08/22
* New schema contributed by Joshua Drake
* The schema now uses foreign keys to more accurately reflect a finacial DDL
* The history table now has a primary key that uses a serial
* The respective balance columns have been increased to int8 to deal
with larger values
* Initalizatio
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
> >> and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
> >> forthcoming.
>
> > Well, unless someo
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
>> and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
>> forthcoming.
> Well, unless someone is going to commit to doing
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for
> > months. I agree with that.
>
> This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature
> freeze window (2005-09-29),
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for
> > months. I agree with that.
>
> This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature
> freeze window (2005-09-29), so it was doomed to a certain am
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 23:38 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
[snip]
>
> FYI, I have not seen a patch for this yet.
>
Thanks for prodding me to submit it. Attached is the documentation
patch, based on Phillipe's example.
Regards
John
Index: contrib/xml2/README.xml2
==
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for
> months. I agree with that.
This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature
freeze window (2005-09-29), so it was doomed to a certain amount of
languishing on the t
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> It has been made as "COPY FROM / TO view" because people wanted it to be
> done that way.
> My original proposal was in favour of arbitrary SELECTs (just like
> proposed by the TODO list) but this was rejected. So, we did it that way
> (had to explain to customer
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired
feature. If
we want to hold it for 8.3 due to lack of time, we can, but I don't
think we can decide now that it
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's a close call. On balance I'd be inclined to accept the patch if it
> reviews OK, even though we will throw the code away soon (we hope).
Well, the patch seems pretty ugly code-wise as well. I'd be willing to
clean it up if I thought it wouldn't u
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
half-baked feature.
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired feature. If
>> we want to hold it for 8.3 due to lack of time, we can, but I don't
>> think we can decide now that it must wait.
> well I thought the agreed approa
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
>> I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
>> half-baked feature.
>
> Well, the patch was submitted in time, an
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
>
> I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
> half-baked feature.
Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired feature.
Teodor, are the new attached regression results correct? If so, I will
apply the patch and update the expected file.
Patch isn't full, simple test (values are took from regression.diffs):
# create table tt (tv tsvector, tq tsquery);
# insert into tt values (E'''1 \\''2''', NULL);
# insert into
> > a.hub.org[200.46.208.251], delay=1, status=sent (250 2.7.1 Ok,
> > discarded, id=258
> > 35-09 - BANNED: P=p003,L=1,M=multipart/mixed |
> > P=p002,L=1/2,M=application/x-gzip ,T=gz,N=vcbuild.tar.gz |
> P=p...)
>
> > Seems -patches is rejecting any mail with attached .tar.gz files,
> if I
> > re
18 matches
Mail list logo
