Tom has some objectives to state PL/pgSQL not explicitly into patch if I
remeber well. If I get comments, I'll correct patch promptly.
Pavel
OK, but it seemed the patch needed more work before it could be applied.
I added a TODO item for it:
o Allow PL/RETURN to return row or record
I just managed to crash the server so I guess this isn't finished, but I'm
posting it in the post early post often spirit. Aside from error checks it
also needs docs and tests of course.
This patch implements an option to copy check constraints when using LIKE.
Because the standard specifically
Fixed the bug, added docs and tests.
like.patch3
Description: Binary data
The previous message explaining the patch:
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This patch implements an option to copy check constraints when using LIKE.
Because the standard specifically excludes constraints
Added to TODO:
o Fix problems with RETURN NEXT on tables with
dropped/added columns after function creation
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-02/msg00165$
---
Sergey E. Koposov
URL added to TODO list.
---
Neil Conway wrote:
P. Scott DeVos wrote:
I'm on it.
Actually, don't worry about it -- I've made the corrections I had in
mind myself. Attached is a revised patch. On looking closer, I
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This patch implements an option to copy check constraints when using LIKE.
Ah, found a problem. I need to do a change_varattnos_of_a_node() call here.
Should this function maybe be promoted to some other file like ruleutils.c?
--
greg
Added to TODO list with URL.
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, we cannot reuse a dead tuple. Maybe we can reuse the space of a dead
tuple by reducing the tuple to
I wrote:
I'm finally getting back to looking at the problem of reference-counting
cached TupleDescs as was discussed in January. I had objected to the
last patch Neil posted:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-01/msg00243.php
on the grounds that it seemed too complicated. On
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 13:33 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
This is a revised fillfactor patch. It uses WITH syntax and
we can add new AM specific parameters easily.
Cool. I'll look at that in more detail.
So we have a new element of the RelationData struct:
void*rd_amopts;
Which
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Here is an updated patch for the remaining cases of DROP objtype IF
EXISTS ... as recently discussed on -hackers.
The cases are:
language, tablespace, trigger, rule, opclass, function, aggregate.
operator, and cast.
Regression tests and docs still to come.
I
Really? If there was a patch, I missed it.
My recollection is that there was general agreement about this
particular problem (see, for example,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-04/msg00189.php ), but
things kind of trailed off after that without a resolution.
As far as the
Peter Brant wrote:
Really? If there was a patch, I missed it.
My recollection is that there was general agreement about this
particular problem (see, for example,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-04/msg00189.php ), but
things kind of trailed off after that without a
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Should pg_dumpall be using the SET default_tablespace = foo method as
well?
That would mean changing the semantics of CREATE DATABASE; currently it
copies the default tablespace from the template database, rather than
looking
Added to TODO:
o Allow PL/python to composite types and result sets
once buggy assert-enabled versions of python can be detected
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-04/msg00087$
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 13:33 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
2. Store the structures in AM's meta page. But heaps don't have meta pages.
But perhaps they should? That sounds very similar to the idea of
non-transactional pg_class data.
The disadvantage of
15 matches
Mail list logo
