Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Finally had a chance to sit down at look at this afresh, and I'm
> pretty sure I've got all the kinks worked out this time. Apologies
> for not attaching, but my mail system
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:34:00PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Finally had a chance to sit down at look at this afresh, and I'm
> > pretty sure I've got all the kinks worked out this time. Apologies
> > for not attaching, but my mail system is not working well enough
> > at the moment. So, ple
Michael Paesold wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> > Finally had a chance to sit down at look at this afresh, and I'm
> > pretty sure I've got all the kinks worked out this time. Apologies
> > for not attaching, but my mail system is not working well enough
> > at the moment. So, please try t
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > * If I read the code correctly, you now don't destroy user savepoints
> > anymore, but on the other hand, you do not release the psql savepoint after
> > a user-defined savepoint is released. In other words, each time a user
> > creates a savepoint, one psql savepoint
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Michael Paesold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I do think so. In it's current state, would you yourself put \reseterror in
> > your .psqlrc? Or even an /etc/psqlrc?
> > It would break all my scripts that must either succeed or fail -- now they
> > will produce garbage in my d
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > The current way is ok for me at the moment. I still think there is a better
> > way (parsing statements like it's already done for
> > no-transaction-allowed-statements), but hey, as soon as your patch will be
> > applied, I can myself propose another patch to improve
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Michael Paesold wrote:
Some suggestions in random order:
* I think you should use PSQLexec instead of using PQexec directly.
PSQLexec
is used by all \-commands and prints out queries with -E, which is very
helpful for debugging.
-E display queries that internal comm
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:34:00PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > Finally had a chance to sit down at look at this afresh, and I'm
> > > pretty sure I've got all the kinks worked out this time. Apologies
> > > for not attaching, but my mail system is not working well e
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > > The SQL-Standard itself says that errors inside transactions should only
> > > rollback the last statement, if possible. So why is that not implemented
> > > in
> > > PostgreSQL? What I read from past discussions here, is because it's just
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I think everyone agrees this should only work in interactive mode. I
> > think the only unknown is if it should be 'on' by default in interactive
> > mode? Does it make sense to follow the standard in interactive mode if
> > we don't follow it in non-i
Alvaro, did you update your patch to address the concerns mentioned below?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have updated this patch to the current CVS HEAD. If somebody would be
> > so
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:14:05PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro, did you update your patch to address the concerns mentioned below?
I'm on it right now. I wanted to finish the shared row locking patch
first, and now that I'm waiting on someone to review it, I'll give some
time to this.
12 matches
Mail list logo
