Euler Taveira de Oliveira writes:
> Tom Lane escreveu:
>> ISTM your
>> argument can be reduced to "there should be no hidden values ever", but
>> I doubt we're going to buy that.
> No, the "hidden values" has their use case (hiding legal values that we don't
> want to expose, for example, true/fa
Tom Lane escreveu:
> ISTM your
> argument can be reduced to "there should be no hidden values ever", but
> I doubt we're going to buy that.
>
No, the "hidden values" has their use case (hiding legal values that we don't
want to expose, for example, true/false, 0/1, yes/no). My point is if they are
Tom Lane schrieb am 14.09.2010 18:34:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
On 14/09/10 17:08, thommy wrote:
-[ RECORD 2 ]+---
feature_id | B032
feature_name | Extended dynamic SQL
sub_feature_id | 01
sub_feature_name |
is_supported | NO
is_verified_by
Euler Taveira de Oliveira writes:
> Bruce Momjian escreveu:
>> We are basically reusing the same validation code for this and other
>> min_messages settings.
>>
> No, we have two enums ({client,server}_message_level_options); I don't
> understand why we should have these options in client_min_mes
Bruce Momjian escreveu:
> We are basically reusing the same validation code for this and other
> min_messages settings.
>
No, we have two enums ({client,server}_message_level_options); I don't
understand why we should have these options in client_min_messages enum.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
On tis, 2010-09-14 at 12:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > On 14/09/10 17:08, thommy wrote:
> >> -[ RECORD 2 ]+---
> >> feature_id | B032
> >> feature_name | Extended dynamic SQL
> >> sub_feature_id | 01
> >> sub_feature_name |
> >>
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Tom Lane escreveu:
> > "thommy" writes:
> >> I just came across a small inconsistency:
> >
> >> pg=# select enumvals from pg_settings where name='client_min_messages';
> >>enumvals
> >>
Tom Lane escreveu:
> "thommy" writes:
>> I just came across a small inconsistency:
>
>> pg=# select enumvals from pg_settings where name='client_min_messages';
>>enumvals
>> ---
>> {debug5,debug4,debug3,debug
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 14/09/10 17:08, thommy wrote:
>> -[ RECORD 2 ]+---
>> feature_id | B032
>> feature_name | Extended dynamic SQL
>> sub_feature_id | 01
>> sub_feature_name |
>> is_supported | NO
>> is_verified_by |
>> comments |
"thommy" writes:
> I just came across a small inconsistency:
> pg=# select enumvals from pg_settings where name='client_min_messages';
>enumvals
> ---
> {debug5,debug4,debug3,debug2,debug1,log,notice,warning,
On 14/09/10 17:08, thommy wrote:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5657
Logged by: thommy
Email address: der.tho...@gmx.net
PostgreSQL version: 9.0rc1
Operating system: Windows
Description:wrong entry in sql_features
Details:
Hi all,
I think
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5656
Logged by: thommy
Email address: der.tho...@gmx.net
PostgreSQL version: 9.0rc1
Operating system: Windows
Description:parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed
in enumvals
Details:
Hi there,
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5657
Logged by: thommy
Email address: der.tho...@gmx.net
PostgreSQL version: 9.0rc1
Operating system: Windows
Description:wrong entry in sql_features
Details:
Hi all,
I think there is a wong line in sql_featu
On mån, 2010-09-13 at 13:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > The correct way to do what he wants to do is
> > configure PYTHON=/usr/local/bin/python3.1 ... other options ...
>
> Hm, maybe this isn't adequately documented? Or at least should be
> cross-referenced where we tal
Thank you Tom for your clear and swift reply.
In case others need it, I'll briefly explain why this issue came about and how
I eventually solved it.
I am working on a web application which uses postgres as a back end database.
For unit testing purposes I have set up a test database and a test us
Guess this means no further suggestions. I'll hack at it then.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> Tom and Chris - thank you for your answers. There are several reasons for
> not including /usr/local/include. Some of those reasons are that I do not
> want to be adding files to
16 matches
Mail list logo
