Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On 5/30/06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I went to test this patch and got the attached regression failures.
> > Please repair and resubmit. Thanks.
> >
>
> did it. sorry for the delay, i was busy this week.
>
> --
> Atentamente,
> Jaime Casanova
>
> "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
> build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
> to produce bigger and better idiots.
> So far, the universe is winning."
>Richard Cook
[ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> ---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>match
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
On 5/30/06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I went to test this patch and got the attached regression failures.
Please repair and resubmit. Thanks.
did it. sorry for the delay, i was busy this week.
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
Richard Cook
fori.patch
Description: Binary data
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
I went to test this patch and got the attached regression failures.
Please repair and resubmit. Thanks.
---
Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On 4/30/06, Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4/29/06, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Jaime Casanova" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>there is a chance to add a STEP clause to the FOR statement in plpgsql?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >This is not free: it'd require making STEP a reserved word (at least
> > > >within plpgsql) which is contrary to spec. I think you need to make
> > > >a pretty good case why the value of the feature outweighs breaking
> > > >applications that have perfectly-legally used "step" as an identifier.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This isn't available in PL/SQL, is it? That doesn't mean we shouldn't do
> > > it, of course, but it might lessen any perceived imperative.
> > >
> > > Maybe using BY instad of STEP as the keyword would make it easier, since
> > > its occurrence in SQL makes it less likely to be used as a variable.
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > andrew
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > i make a little patch using BY instead of STEP per Tom's complaint and
> > Andrew's suggestion.
> >
>
> the patch is ready, at least it seems to me... also i have added some
> lines to the docs...
>
> let me know what your decision is about this...
>
> --
> regards,
> Jaime Casanova
>
> "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
> build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
> to produce bigger and better idiots.
> So far, the universe is winning."
>Richard Cook
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
*** ./expected/plpgsql.out Tue May 30 07:58:19 2006
--- ./results/plpgsql.out Tue May 30 08:13:52 2006
***
*** 1466,1474
--- 1466,1482
-- ethernet interface into the wall and patch it to the hub.
--
insert into Hub values ('base.hub1', 'Patchfield PF0_1 hub', 16);
+ ERROR: syntax error at or near "¤"
+ LINE 1: ¤JäH¯#¤F
+ ^
+ QUERY: ¤JäH¯#¤F
+ CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "tg_hub_adjustslots" line 9 at for with integer
loopvar
+ PL/pgSQL function "tg_hub_a" line 6 at assignment
insert into System values ('orion', 'PC');
insert into IFace values ('IF', 'orion', 'eth0', 'WS.002.1b');
update PSlot set slotlink = 'HS.base.hub1.1' where slotname = 'PS.base.b2';
+ ERROR: HS.base.hub1.1 does not exist
+ CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "tg_slotlink_a" line 16 at assignment
--
-- Now we take a look at the patchfield
--
***
*** 1482,1488
PF0_1 | PS.base.a5 | WS.001.3a in room 001 -> -
| -
PF0_1 | PS.base.a6 | WS.001.3b in room 001 -> -
| -
PF0_1 | PS.base.b1 | WS.002.1a in room 002 -> Phone PH.hc002
(Hicom standard) | PS.base.ta5 -> Phone line -103
! PF0_1 | PS.base.b2 | WS.002.1b in room 002 -> orion IF eth0 (PC)
| Patchfield PF0_1 hub slot 1
PF0_1 | PS.base.b3 | WS.002.2a in room 002 -> Phone PH.hc003
(Hicom standard) | PS.base.tb2 -> Phone line -106
PF0_1 | PS.base.b4 | WS.002.2b in room 002 -> -
| -
PF0_1 | PS.base.b5 | WS.002.3a in room 002 -> -
| -
--- 1490,1496
PF0_1 | PS.base.a5 | WS.001.3a in room 001 -> -
| -
PF0_1 | PS.base.a6 | WS.001.3b in room 001 -> -
| -
PF0_1 | PS.base.b1 | WS.002.1a in room 002 -> Phone PH.hc002
(Hicom standard) | PS.base.ta5 -> Phone line -103
! PF0_1 | PS.base.b2 | WS.002.1b in room 002 -> orion IF eth0 (PC)
| -
PF0_1 | PS.base.b3 | WS.002.2a in room 002 -> Phone PH.hc003
(Hicom standard) | PS.base.tb2 -> Phone line -106
PF0_1 | PS.base.b4 | WS.002.2b in room 002 -> -
| -
PF0_1 | PS.base.b5 | WS.002.3a in room 002 -> -
| -
***
*** 1530,1540
ERROR: illegal slotlink beginning with XX
CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "tg_slotlink_a" line 16 at assignment
insert into HSlot values ('HS', 'base.hub1', 1, '');
! ERROR: duplicate key violates unique constraint "hslot_name"
insert into HSlot values ('HS', 'base.hub1', 20, '');
ERROR: no manual manipulation of HSlot
delete from HSlot;
- ERROR: no manual manipulation of HSlot
insert into IFace values ('IF', 'notthere', 'eth0', '');
ERROR: system "notthere" does not exist
insert into IFace values ('IF', 'orion', 'ethernet_interface_name_to
On 4/30/06, Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/29/06, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >"Jaime Casanova" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>there is a chance to add a STEP clause to the FOR statement in plpgsql?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This is not free: it'd require making STEP a reserved word (at least
> >within plpgsql) which is contrary to spec. I think you need to make
> >a pretty good case why the value of the feature outweighs breaking
> >applications that have perfectly-legally used "step" as an identifier.
> >
> >
>
> This isn't available in PL/SQL, is it? That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it,
of course, but it might lessen any perceived imperative.
>
> Maybe using BY instad of STEP as the keyword would make it easier, since its
occurrence in SQL makes it less likely to be used as a variable.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
Hi,
i make a little patch using BY instead of STEP per Tom's complaint and
Andrew's suggestion.
the patch is ready, at least it seems to me... also i have added some
lines to the docs...
let me know what your decision is about this...
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
Richard Cook
diff -rcEib pgsql-8.2dev/doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml pgsql-8.2fori/doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml
*** pgsql-8.2dev/doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml 2006-05-01 08:49:20.0 -0500
--- pgsql-8.2fori/doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml 2006-05-05 17:31:36.0 -0500
***
*** 1960,1966
<