On Sun, 2007-06-05 at 00:20 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I object to the short notice. I think we need to give people a chance to
adjust their configs
Sure, I can wait a few days (although if we're going to do this for 8.3,
we should do it promptly). On reflection, it might actually be wiser
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think we need to give people a chance to
adjust their configs, especially on the buildfarm, where those who
have currently simply removed the --enable-integer-datetimes setting
will need to adjust their configs.
Why? They have
Hello
This patch contains implementation of table functions defined in ANSI
SQL 2003 (Conformance with SQL2003: T326 Table functions). Patch adds
new proargmode PROARGMODE_TABLE (based on PROARGMODE_OUT). Columns of
output table are similar OUT arguments, but don't generate any
variables.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
---
Neil Conway wrote:
On reflection, it might actually be wiser to
delay making this change until the beginning of the 8.4 cycle...
I think that's probably true, but I can live with it either way as long
as there's enough notice.
cheers
andrew
---(end of
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:33:47PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
However, there are still some oddities. For example, a change to or
removal of the base type affects the array type, but the array type
can be directly operated on (e.g. alter type _aa set schema foo ).
I'm inclined to say we
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2007-03-05 at 23:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm, but apply hash_any() to the remaining digits? That might work, if
you are careful about how you factor the weight into it (or just not try
to use the weight in the hash).
Attached is a patch that
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So actually an equality test against INT_MAX would be correct. But making
that clear in the comment would probably not be a bad idea :-)
I have applied a fix for this, because it obviously needed fixing
regardless of if it fixes the original issue
So actually an equality test against INT_MAX would be correct. But making
that clear in the comment would probably not be a bad idea :-)
I have applied a fix for this, because it obviously needed fixing
regardless of if it fixes the original issue all the way. Still looking
for
