Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
The option parsing and error checking is now common.
I also changed it to use transformStmt() in analyze.c.
However, both the UNION and sunselect cases give me
something like this:
ERROR: could not open relation 1663/16384/16723: No such file
Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
The option parsing and error checking is now common.
I also changed it to use transformStmt() in analyze.c.
However, both the UNION and sunselect cases give me
something like this:
ERROR: could not open relation 1663/16384/16723: No such file or
directory
What else
Tom Lane írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How about the callback solution for the SELECT case
that was copied from the original? Should I consider
open-coding in copy.c what ExecutorRun() does
to avoid the callback?
Adding a DestReceiver type is a good solution ...
Alvaro Herrera írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
OK, here's my current version. The reference leak is fixed.
But as my testcase shows, it only works for single selects
currently. The parser accepts it but COPY doesn't produce
the expected output. Please, suggest a solution.
I'm not sure
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> OK, here's my current version. The reference leak is fixed.
> But as my testcase shows, it only works for single selects
> currently. The parser accepts it but COPY doesn't produce
> the expected output. Please, suggest a solution.
I'm not sure I agree with the approac
Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
Hi,
Bruce Momjian írta:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said
Hi,
Bruce Momjian írta:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said "now", but I don't thi
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
> > >
> > > I thought he was saying today ;-)
> >
> > He actually said "now", but I don't think we need it immediately,
> > espe
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
> >
> > I thought he was saying today ;-)
>
> He actually said "now", but I don't think we need it immediately,
> especially if he is still working on it. We
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
> >
> >
>
> I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said "now", but I don't think we need it immediately,
especially if he is still working on it. We are at least 1-2 weeks aw
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
> Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
>> > B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
>> >
>> >> > So when will you send in a revised patch?
>> >>
>> >> Soon. :-)
>> >
>> > No, don't send it "soon". We're in feature freeze already (and have
>> > been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
>>
>> I have to test it some m
B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
> > B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
> >
> >> > So when will you send in a revised patch?
> >>
> >> Soon. :-)
> >
> > No, don't send it "soon". We're in feature freeze already (and have
> > been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
>
> I have to test it some more but I w
> Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
>
>> > So when will you send in a revised patch?
>>
>> Soon. :-)
>
> No, don't send it "soon". We're in feature freeze already (and have
> been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
I have to test it some more but I will send it.
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
> > So when will you send in a revised patch?
>
> Soon. :-)
No, don't send it "soon". We're in feature freeze already (and have
been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL
> Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of
those
>
Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of those
others. But is that what I
Hi,
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
>> pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
>> awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of those
>> others. But is that what I should be spending m
--On Mittwoch, August 23, 2006 08:24:55 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What are these open issues for the updatable views patch you are seeing
exactly?
Didn't Alvaro list a bunch of issues when he put the patch back up for
comment? I have not looked at it myself yet.
Indeed h
Bernd Helmle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are these open issues for the updatable views patch you are seeing
> exactly?
Didn't Alvaro list a bunch of issues when he put the patch back up for
comment? I have not looked at it myself yet.
> i see the INSERT...RETURNING stuff as the only "big
Tom Lane wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of those
others. But is that what I should be spending my time on in the
Hi all,
seriously... I don't have time to work on PostgreSQL. It's time to
say that I'm leaving this project. So, if you found some my broken
code or whatever in PostgreSQL you should go and fix it. It's
community-driven project. It's about collaboration -- don't ask "why
should I help" --
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:11:22PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> There's nothing hidden (unless it's also hidden from me ;-) )
>
> I take it that when you talk about "we did this" you are referring to
> the patch from Karel Zak.
Hans has been original author of COPY VIEW idea and I've wrote it
--On Dienstag, August 22, 2006 23:12:21 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of tho
Hi,
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
>>> and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
>>> forthcoming.
>
>> Well, unless someone is going to co
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
> >> and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
> >> forthcoming.
>
> > Well, unless someo
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
>> and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
>> forthcoming.
> Well, unless someone is going to commit to doing
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for
> > months. I agree with that.
>
> This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature
> freeze window (2005-09-29),
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for
> > months. I agree with that.
>
> This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature
> freeze window (2005-09-29), so it was doomed to a certain am
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for
> months. I agree with that.
This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature
freeze window (2005-09-29), so it was doomed to a certain amount of
languishing on the t
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> It has been made as "COPY FROM / TO view" because people wanted it to be
> done that way.
> My original proposal was in favour of arbitrary SELECTs (just like
> proposed by the TODO list) but this was rejected. So, we did it that way
> (had to explain to customer
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired
feature. If
we want to hold it for 8.3 due to lack of time, we can, but I don't
think we can decide now that it
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's a close call. On balance I'd be inclined to accept the patch if it
> reviews OK, even though we will throw the code away soon (we hope).
Well, the patch seems pretty ugly code-wise as well. I'd be willing to
clean it up if I thought it wouldn't u
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
half-baked feature.
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired feature. If
>> we want to hold it for 8.3 due to lack of time, we can, but I don't
>> think we can decide now that it must wait.
> well I thought the agreed approa
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
>> I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
>> half-baked feature.
>
> Well, the patch was submitted in time, an
36 matches
Mail list logo