Hi Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 February 2004 23:52
> To: Mark Cave-Ayland
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ANALYZE patch for review
>
>
> "Mark Cave-Ayland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yup indeed. Please find enclo
Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We will document this on the win32 TODO list and remove this patch once
> > MinGW is fixed.
>
> IIRC, Tom and I both suggested that there is no need to clutter the
> source tree with a temporary workaround for a platform that hasn'
"Mark Cave-Ayland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only reason I kept the Relation parameter
> was because I wasn't sure if there was a historical reason why someone
> would need the relation information as well as the attribute
> information.
I can't think of one, but if someone did, they could
Hi,
Would anyone have any objections if I started to look at the following
TODO item?
INSERT
* Allow INSERT INTO tab (col1, ..) VALUES (val1, ..), (val2, ..)
By this item I assume it means extending the INSERT INTO statement to
allow for multiple inserts in a single statement. Any further
Nick Barr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would anyone have any objections if I started to look at the following
> TODO item?
>
> INSERT
>
> * Allow INSERT INTO tab (col1, ..) VALUES (val1, ..), (val2, ..)
>
> By this item I assume it means extending the INSERT INTO statement to
> allow for multiple ins
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: 13 February 2004 14:41
> To: Mark Cave-Ayland
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ANALYZE patch for review
>
>
> "Mark Cave-Ayland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nick Barr wrote:
>> Would anyone have any objections if I started to look at the following
>> TODO item?
>>
>> * Allow INSERT INTO tab (col1, ..) VALUES (val1, ..), (val2, ..)
> Sounds good. Please read the developers FAQ for the suggested process.
A
