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
read that
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
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. If
we
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, and it is a
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 approach to
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.
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
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
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 why
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
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
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 amount of
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), so it was
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 it the
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 someone is going to
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
