Hi folks
Here's a first cut of the enums patch for feedback when people have
time. It follows an anyenum pseudo-type approach as foreseen by
Nostradamus in one of the original threads.
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-11/msg00457.php).
That made the patch a little more
This patch adds following functionality to PostgreSQL
1. If PostgreSQL is compiled with OpenSSL version 0.9.7 and above,
both backend and libpq read site-wide OpenSSL configuration file as
described in OPENSSL_config functon manual page.
This allows to use hardware crypto acceleration modules
On Sep 1, 2006, at 11:31 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am unclear about this report. The patch was not meant to fix
every
interval issue, but merely to improve multiplication and division
computations. Does it do that?
According to
On Sep 1, 2006, at 11:03 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am unclear about this report. The patch was not meant to fix every
interval issue, but merely to improve multiplication and division
computations. Does it do that? I think the 23:60 is a time rounding
issue that isn't covered in this patch.
Here's a patch that appears to work. Gives the same output with and
without --enable-integer-datetimes. Answers look like they're correct.
I'm basically treating the components as three different intervals
(with the other two components zero), rounding them each to usecs,
and adding them
Please ignore the patch I just sent. Much too quick with the send
button.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your
I little bit enhanced overview catalog tables. I added two new columns.
First one is OID of catalog table and second one contains attributes
which determine if the table is bootstrap, with oid and global.
I'm not able generate doc from sgml :( and verify if changes are ok :(.
Michael Glaesemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it worth looking into the overflow and subtraction issues for 8.2?
It seems to me they're bugs rather than features. Or are these 8.3
since it's so late?
IMHO they're bugs not new features, and therefore perfectly fair game
to work on during
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I little bit enhanced overview catalog tables. I added two new columns.
First one is OID of catalog table and second one contains attributes
which determine if the table is bootstrap, with oid and global.
Why is this a good idea? It seems like mere
Tom Lane wrote:
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I little bit enhanced overview catalog tables. I added two new columns.
First one is OID of catalog table and second one contains attributes
which determine if the table is bootstrap, with oid and global.
Why is this a good idea?
Folks,
This patch clarifies the 'predicate locking' section in the docs.
Thanks to Harrison Fisk of MySQL AB for helping.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to
Attached is a draft patch that makes rules support RETURNING as per my
proposal of earlier today, ie, have the rewriter automatically adjust a
RETURNING clause present in an unconditional INSTEAD rule. The core of
the patch is barely twenty lines (the code added to rewriteRuleAction)
--- the rest
David Fetter wrote:
This patch clarifies the 'predicate locking' section in the docs.
What it does it raise the question what next-key locking is.
I don't think any of this matters for us. We should just remove the
part that claims that no other system implements predicate locking.
--
Peter
On 9/1/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is a draft patch that makes rules support RETURNING ...
What format is that patch in? Either something's wrong or Gmail just
went really wacko.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 9/1/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is a draft patch that makes rules support RETURNING ...
What format is that patch in? Either something's wrong or Gmail just
went really wacko.
I see the attachment fine.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This will appear in 8.2, but with the name 'table_name':
revision 1.80
date: 2006/05/26 19:23:09; author: adunstan; state: Exp; lines: +17
-2
Add table_name and table_schema to plpython trigger data, plus docs and
regression test.
I assume this is something we want in /contrib, right?
---
Victor B. Wagner wrote:
Following patch provides new contrib module pgsslinfo, which contains
several server-side functions, which allow to examine information
Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9/1/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is a draft patch that makes rules support RETURNING ...
What format is that patch in? Either something's wrong or Gmail just
went really wacko.
It's just a gzip'd patch diff.
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I assume this is something we want in /contrib, right?
Peter posted an updated version, I believe.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I assume this is something we want in /contrib, right?
Peter posted an updated version, I believe.
Ah, it was lower in my mailbox. Thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If
20 matches
Mail list logo
