On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Strahinja Kustudić
strahin...@nordeus.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Mark Kirkwood
mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz wrote:
That is interesting: I've done some testing on this type of card with 16
(slightly faster Hitachi) SSD attached. Setting WT and
On 12/08/2014 01:39 PM, Tim Dudgeon wrote:
On 08/12/2014 18:14, Adrian Klaver wrote:
Recheck Cond: data - 'assay1_ic50'::text))::double precision
90::double precision) AND (((data - 'assay2_ic50'::text))::double
precision 10::double precision))
which means we have to pull the
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Yeah, I believe the core problem is that Postgres currently doesn't have
any way to have variadic return times from a function which don't match
variadic input types. Returning a value as an actual numeric from JSONB
would require returning a numeric from
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The usability issue could be fixed by teaching the planner to fold a
construct like (jsonb - 'foo')::numeric into (jsonb -# 'foo').
But I'm not sure how we do that except in a really ugly and ad-hoc
fashion.
It would be
On 12/12/2014 04:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Yeah, I believe the core problem is that Postgres currently doesn't have
any way to have variadic return times from a function which don't match
variadic input types. Returning a value as an actual numeric from
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 12/12/2014 04:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, it'd be easy to fix if we were willing to invent distinct operators
depending on which type you wanted out (perhaps - for text output as
today, add -# for numeric output, etc).
That was my immediate
On 12/12/2014 08:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
We can't just add the operator and worry about usability later;
if we're thinking we might want to introduce such an automatic
transformation, we have to be sure the new operator is defined in a
way that allows the transformation to not change any
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 12/12/2014 08:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
We can't just add the operator and worry about usability later;
if we're thinking we might want to introduce such an automatic
transformation, we have to be sure the new
