Re: postgresql 11 release notes
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:20 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: > Brad, your forgot to reply to pgsql-docs. > > 2018-06-19 20:21 GMT-03:00 Brad DeJong : > > How about dropping the which clause entirely? I split this off as > > release-11-newunit-v1.patch for further discussion. > > > Works for me. Could you append it to v2? > > Done. > >> > >> -Exclude unlogged, temporary tables, and > >> +Exclude unlogged, temporary tables and > >> pg_internal.init files from streaming > base > >> backups (David Steele) > >> > >> > >> AFAIK postgres uses Oxford comma a lot. > > > > I left this change in the v2 patch. > > I didn't remove it because it was an Oxford comma; I removed it because > > there are only two items, tables and files, so this should not be a comma > > separated list. > > Unlogged and temporary both modify tables and tell us what kind of tables > > are being excluded. > > If this was a list, the items should be semi-colon separated because of > the > > comma between unlogged and temporary. > > For example - Exclude unlogged, temporary tables; b-tree indexes; and > > pg_internal.init files from streaming base backups. > > > I see. I think the sentence should be "Exclude unlogged tables, > temporary tables, and pg_internal.init files from > streaming base backups". > > I like it. Done. > > -- >Euler Taveira Timbira - > http://www.timbira.com.br/ >PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento > release-11-v3.patch Description: Binary data
Re: postgresql 11 release notes
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Brad DeJong wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:20 PM, Euler Taveira > wrote: >> >> I see. I think the sentence should be "Exclude unlogged tables, >> temporary tables, and pg_internal.init files from >> streaming base backups". >> >> I like it. Done. > >> >> Just to make the difference explicit "Exclude unlogged, temporary tables and ..." => if (table.unlogged == true AND table.temporary == true) then exclude table "Exclude unlogged tables, temporary tables, and ..." => if (table.unlogged == true OR table.temporary == true) then exclude table I do not know whether the condition is an AND or an OR. When you said "I think the sentence should be ...", I took that to mean that you know that the condition should be an OR.
Re: [DOCS] XMLTABLE default namespace in docs
On 2017-Sep-11, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > When reviewing Pavels patch for default namespace in XMLTABLE, I came across > this sentence in the devel (and 10beta) docs in subsection 9.14.3.3. xmltable: > > The following example illustrates how the XMLNAMESPACES clause can be > used to specify the default namespace, and a list of additional > namespaces used in the XML document as well as in the XPath > expressions: > > That seems odd since we don’t support default namespaces (hence the patch for > adding it). Am I reading it wrong, or shouldn’t we apply something like the > attached for now? You're right, we should -- thanks for noticing. I have pushed it now. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Documentation of pg_index.indcollation missing some info in older versions?
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/catalog-pg-index.html Description: Hi, all. While working on some scripts to identify missing indexes and add them to a given table, I was a little confused by some entries in pg_index's "indcollation" column like: indexrelid | 659423 indrelid | 44520 indnatts | 2 indisunique| t indisprimary | f indisexclusion | f indimmediate | t indisclustered | f indisvalid | t indcheckxmin | f indisready | t indislive | t indisreplident | f indkey | 5 3 indcollation | 0 0 [...] because 0::OID does not reference a valid pg_collation.oid. In the IRC, Zr40 helpfully pointed out that the latest documentation readily clarifies: "For each column in the index key, this contains the OID of the collation to use for the index, or zero if the column is not of a collatable data type." However, I'm using 9.6 and was looking at the matching documentation at https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/catalog-pg-index.html That page doesn't currently include this note; for 9.6, it only says "For each column in the index key, this contains the OID of the collation to use for the index" which had me confused about what I was seeing. I believe the use of OID 0 in this form has been in place for a long time, but only the current 9.10 docs say anything about it. Since I currently run 9.6, I can confirm that the behavior reaches back at least that far. For those who generally look at the matching documentation-version as the database they're running, it would be helpful if the note found in 9.10's pg_index doc could be included on the relevant previous versions as well. Thanks! - Patrick O'Toole Application Developer Wyoming Natural Diversity Database UW Berry Biodiversity Conservation Center Department 3381, 1000 E. University Av. Laramie, WY 82071 P: 307-766-3018
