The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 6360
Logged by: ctwang
Email address: wcting...@163.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.0.5
Operating system: linux 2.6.18-128.7AXS3
Description:
create table test_execute(id int,name varchar(40));
insert into te
So first off some ground work:
postgres=# select 'infinity'::timestamp;
timestamp
---
infinity
(1 row)
postgres=# select 'infinity'::float8;
float8
--
Infinity
(1 row)
Establishing that we do in fact have an infinity value for both the
timestamp type and the double precision
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> So first off some ground work:
>
> postgres=# select 'infinity'::timestamp;
> timestamp
> ---
> infinity
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=# select 'infinity'::float8;
> float8
> --
> Infinity
> (1 row)
>
> Establishing that we do in
wcting...@163.com writes:
> The reason is that the function p_test_execute is executed twice, when
> *fetch*, it is first executed, and when transaction commit, because the
> cursor is a *holdable* cursor, it is executed again.
Yup. I don't particularly see this as a bug. If you were to manually
Phil Sorber writes:
> My search foo failed me. Someone just pointed me to a similar
> conversation from some months ago:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg00677.php
> I would propose that since we can't know the hour or minute of
> infinity that we should return null for t
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Phil Sorber writes:
>> My search foo failed me. Someone just pointed me to a similar
>> conversation from some months ago:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg00677.php
>
>> I would propose that since we can't know the hour
postgres=# select version();
version
---
PostgreSQL 9.0alpha5 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
4
At 2011-12-28 01:47:20,"Tom Lane" t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Yup. I don't particularly see this as a bug. If you were to manually
>rewind and rescan the cursor (ie, MOVE BACKWARD ALL and re-fetch),
>the function would be executed multiple times too. If you don't want
>that to happen, the best wa
