Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Why are we mentioning Oracle behavior at all?
> I don't have a strong opinion on this -- is there a consensus we don't
> want to do it?
I think the existing mention is fine. It's silly to pretend that these
decisions are not mot
Neil Conway wrote:
Woops, I forgot we renamed default_use_oids to default_with_oids.
Updated patch attached.
Applied to HEAD.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
"arrays of records" seems inaccurate; how about "set of records"
instead?
Okay, I'll check this in separately this evening/tomorrow.
Why are we mentioning Oracle behavior at all?
I don't have a strong opinion on this -- is there a consensus we don't
want to do it?
-Neil
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
!The SQL2003 standard specifies that the keyword
!SAVEPOINT is mandatory. PostgreSQL and
!Oracle allow the SAVEPOINT
!keyword to be omitted. SQL2003 allows only WORK, not
Why are we mentioning Oracle behavior at all?
One of the influences on the SAVEPOIN
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 02:48:23PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
While you are at it ...
>
>
> A new version of the plperl server-side language now
> ! supports a persistent shared storage area, triggers, returning records
> ! and arrays of records, and S
