On 10/12/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you should add some examples to show how we would handle an
> INSERT or an UPDATE SET with quite_nullable() and a SELECT WHERE clause
> with quote_literal. The difference is a subtle one, which is why nobody
> mentioned it before, so it
Tom Lane wrote:
> I've reviewed and tested Sergey Karpov's proposed contrib modules
> dict_int, dict_xsyn, and test_parser.
Isn't dict_xsym like the built in synonym dictionary, but with support
for multiple replacement words? Why don't we just replace the built in
synonym dictionary with this?
-
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isn't dict_xsym like the built in synonym dictionary, but with support
> for multiple replacement words? Why don't we just replace the built in
> synonym dictionary with this?
Well, we'd still need a contrib example that uses a config file, so that
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm all for the prevalance of sanity, but I'm not really clear on what
> about the above scenario is not sane.
Well, a situation like that just calls into question whether there's
been a mistake --- in particular whether the underlying function is
reall
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I push the TOAST_TUPLES_PER_PAGE up to 16 I get another failure on the same
> line from trying to toast a sequence. If I add RELKIND_SEQUENCE to the
> assertion then it passes all regression tests even if I push
> TOAST_TUPLES_PER_PAGE up to 1024 -- ie
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If I push the TOAST_TUPLES_PER_PAGE up to 16 I get another failure on the
>> same
>> line from trying to toast a sequence. If I add RELKIND_SEQUENCE to the
>> assertion then it passes all regression tests even i
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hmm. I'm inclined to reverse the tests (there are 3 not just 1) in
>> heapam.c, so that it explicitly tries to toast only in plain tables,
>> rather than adding more exclusion cases. Thoughts?
> Well RELKIND_UN
Attached is a patch that avoids a needless copy of the result tuple in
nodeMaterial, in the case that we don't have a previously-materialized
tuple to return. We can just return the TTS produced by executing our
child node, rather than returning a copy of it.
I didn't bother pulling the MinimalTup
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached is a patch that avoids a needless copy of the result tuple in
> nodeMaterial, in the case that we don't have a previously-materialized
> tuple to return.
Seems like this needs more comments about what's happening, rather
than less ...
Also, it lo
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 00:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Seems like this needs more comments about what's happening, rather
> than less ...
Fair point.
> Also, it looks to me like the plan node's own resultslot might never be
> assigned to at all, when the subplan returns zero rows. Does this
> corn
10 matches
Mail list logo
