On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
> flag. Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
> pg_dump/pg_restore? I thought we were just going to disable it.
I believe so.
2008/6/24 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But if I have
>> foo( a text, b int[])
>> it looks odd if both these calls are legal:
>> foo('a',1,2,3,)
>> foo('a',ARRAY[1,2,3])
>> which I understand would be the case with the current patch.
>
> Maybe I
2008/6/23 Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> And what about a function that takes 2 arrays as arguments?
only last argument is evaluated as variadic
so function
create or replace function foo(a int[], b int[]) ... variadic
is called
select foo(array[1,2,3], 1,2,3,4,5,6)
>
> This propos
2008/6/24 Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Your point about the syntax is good though. It would be better if
>> the syntax were like
>>
>>create function foo (a text, variadic b int[])
>>
>> or maybe even better
>>
>>create function foo (a text, varia
Tom Lane wrote:
Your point about the syntax is good though. It would be better if
the syntax were like
create function foo (a text, variadic b int[])
or maybe even better
create function foo (a text, variadic b int)
since (a) this makes it much more obvious to the reader wh
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But if I have
> foo( a text, b int[])
> it looks odd if both these calls are legal:
> foo('a',1,2,3,)
> foo('a',ARRAY[1,2,3])
> which I understand would be the case with the current patch.
Maybe I misunderstand what is supposed to happen, but I be
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
What would you consider "proper and full support"?
I don't know. But this doesn't feel like it.
That's a fairly weak argument for rejecting a patch that provides a
feature many people have asked
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What would you consider "proper and full support"?
>
> I don't know. But this doesn't feel like it.
That's a fairly weak argument for rejecting a patch that provides a
feature many people have asked for.
I thought the patch was pret
daveg wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
> > > >
> > > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like:
> > > > >
>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
> > >
> > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like:
> > > >
> > > > pg_restore -E "SET ST
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
> >
> > > That is an interesting idea. Something like:
> > >
> > > pg_restore -E "SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G" ?
> >
> > We already have it -
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This proposal strikes me as half-baked. Either we need proper and full
support for variadic functions, or we don't, but I don't think we need
syntactic sugar like the above (or maybe in this case it's really
syntactic saccharine).
Added to TODO:
* Implement a module capability for loading /contrib-style extensions
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-04/msg00164.php
---
Tom Dunstan wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Here is a patch that provides a
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Also, it seems a bit inconsistent to be relying on
> > oracle_compat.c for upper/lower but not initcap.
> >
> I saw this inconsistence while I'm doing the patch. What about moving
> that upper/lower/initcap and wcs* code to another file. p
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I am starting to think that the simplest case is to keep the single-copy
> > version in there for single-byte encodings and not worry about the
> > overhead of the multi-byte case.
>
> My new idea is if we pass the length to str_initcap, we can eliminate
> the string copy
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 03:52 +1000, Thomas Lee wrote:
> * Should it be possible to set this new variable via a command-line
> option ala shared_buffers?
I would say not: most parameters cannot be set by special command-line
parameters, and this one is not important enough to warrant special
treatm
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This proposal strikes me as half-baked. Either we need proper and full
> support for variadic functions, or we don't, but I don't think we need
> syntactic sugar like the above (or maybe in this case it's really
> syntactic saccharine).
What would yo
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
this patch enhance current syntax of CREATE FUNCTION statement. It
allows creating functions with variable number of arguments. This
version is different than last my patches. It doesn't need patching
PL. Basic idea is transformation of real arguments (related to
dec
18 matches
Mail list logo
