Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 10:21:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> When I tried the ecpg regression tests it complained there was no
> >> results/ directory. I created one and it worked.
>
> > Hmm, anyone else experiencing this? Th
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 10:21:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> When I tried the ecpg regression tests it complained there was no
>> results/ directory. I created one and it worked.
> Hmm, anyone else experiencing this? The pg_regress.sh has this cod
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 10:21:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> When I tried the ecpg regression tests it complained there was no
> results/ directory. I created one and it worked.
Hmm, anyone else experiencing this? The pg_regress.sh has this code that
should create it:
outputdir="results/"
i
Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sep 4, 2006, at 9:41 , Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This patch fails to apply --- looks like whitespace got mangled in
> >> transit. Please resend as an attachment.
>
> > Please let me know if you have any problems with this one.
>
Tom Lane wrote:
You mentioned being unable to get the ecpg tests to run on your
machine. I'm sure Michael and Joachim would like the details. The
ecpg regression tests are pretty new and some portability problems
are to be expected, but they seem to be passing on all the machines
Michael and
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sep 4, 2006, at 9:41 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> This patch fails to apply --- looks like whitespace got mangled in
>> transit. Please resend as an attachment.
> Please let me know if you have any problems with this one.
Ah, that one works --- applied
On Sep 4, 2006, at 9:41 , Tom Lane wrote:
This patch fails to apply --- looks like whitespace got mangled in
transit. Please resend as an attachment.
Please let me know if you have any problems with this one.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
10interval_input_0904T0855+0900.diff
De
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I realized there might be something in ecpg, and there was. I've
> updated the ecpg DecodeInterval to match. However, I haven't been
> able to get ecpg make check to work, so that part's untested.
This patch fails to apply --- looks like whitesp
On Sep 3, 2006, at 20:00 , Michael Glaesemann wrote:
On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:32 , Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:12 , Tom Lane wrote:
I agree that this seems like an oversight in the original
months/days/seconds patch, rather than behavior
On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:32 , Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:12 , Tom Lane wrote:
I agree that this seems like an oversight in the original
months/days/seconds patch, rather than behavior we want to keep.
But is DecodeInterval the only place wi
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:12 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree that this seems like an oversight in the original
>> months/days/seconds patch, rather than behavior we want to keep.
>> But is DecodeInterval the only place with the problem?
> I'll check on this
On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:12 , Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I came across some behavior that seems counterintuitive to me:
test=# select '1.5 mon'::interval;
interval
-
1 mon 360:00:00
(1 row)
With the time/day/month interval struct intro
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I came across some behavior that seems counterintuitive to me:
> test=# select '1.5 mon'::interval;
> interval
> -
> 1 mon 360:00:00
> (1 row)
> With the time/day/month interval struct introduced in 8.1, I'd expect
> this to
The masks don't need changing.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
When trying to improve the rounding in interval_div and interval_mul,
I came across some behavior that seems counterintuitive to me:
test=# select '1.5 mon'::interval;
interval
-
1 mon 360:00:00
(1 row)
With the time/day/month interval struct introduced in 8.1, I'd expect
15 matches
Mail list logo
