This is indeed really cool. I'm sorry I haven't gotten to doing what I
promised in this area but I'm glad it's happening anyways.
"Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we get the rows in tree order, please?
>...
> After all, I didn't specify any ORDER BY clauses in the base, r
"David Fetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:21:20AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
>> "Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Also, it seems there are no infinite recursion detection:
>> >
>> > # with recursive x(level, parent, child) as (
>> >select 1::i
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:21:20AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, it seems there are no infinite recursion detection:
> >
> > # with recursive x(level, parent, child) as (
> >select 1::integer, * from test_connect_by where parent is null
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we get the rows in tree order, please? I.e. something like this:
Is ordering by tree order defined in the standard when no explicit
order is given? If not, it probably returns them
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we get the rows in tree order, please? I.e. something like this:
Is ordering by tree order defined in the standard when no explicit
order is given? If not, it probably returns them in the order they
are pulled up
David Fetter írta:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 08:51:29PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Here are patches to implement WITH RECURSIVE clause. There are some
limitiations and TODO items(see the "Current limitations" section
below). Comments are welcome.
1. Credit
These pat
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 08:51:29PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
>
> Here are patches to implement WITH RECURSIVE clause. There are some
> limitiations and TODO items(see the "Current limitations" section
> below). Comments are welcome.
>
> 1. Credit
>
> These patches we
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Andrew Chernow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is an updated patch for what was called object hooks. This is now
called libpq events. If someone has a better name or hates ours, let us
know.
Let's decide where to go with this. We have
Bruce Momjian wrote:
This broke the buildfarm and finally explains the following kluge which
has been puzzling me for four years:
/*
* for some reason MinGW (and MSVC) outputs an extra newline, so
this
* suppresses it
*/
#ifndef WIN32
fputc('\
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> In fact, it looks to me like it would be much more sensible to #include
> "settings.h" and then simply test pset.notty for all platforms.
>
>
> >>> Yes, we could do that but does the isatty() value ever change while psql
> >>> is running?
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Andrew Chernow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is an updated patch for what was called object hooks. This is now
> called libpq events. If someone has a better name or hates ours, let us
> know.
Let's decide where to go with this. We have no objections to pus
WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Here are patches to implement WITH RECURSIVE clause. There are some
limitiations and TODO items(see the "Current limitations" section
below). Comments are welcome.
1. Credit
These patches were developed by Yoshiyuki Asaba ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
with some discussions with T
12 matches
Mail list logo
