Sáb, 2008-04-19 às 12:10 -0500, Jaime Casanova escreveu:
> """
> Unlike the previous examples, "2007-04-05 14:30" is considered two
> separate, but acceptable, representations—one for date and the other
> for time. It is then left to the reader to interpret the two separate
> representations as me
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:26:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Roman Kononov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The below test cases show the obvious inconsistency between different
> > integer types.
>
> [ shrug... ] The << and >> operators just expose the behavior of the
> local C compiler's shift o
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> On the other hand, some important ISO8601-based specifications only
> accept the dateTtime notation, for instance XML Schema.
>
> As I was talking on #postgresql, I think it would be nice to have that
> output option as one of the date/time output styles (name it ISO8601 or
>
Sam Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wouldn't it be easy to put some code like this in:
> if (arg2 < 16)
> return PG_RETURN_INT16(arg1 << arg2);
> return PG_RETURN_INT16(0);
This is a straw man. It covers *one* of the behaviors left undefined
by the C standard. I quote from C99:
Tom Lane wrote:
> And I still find the premise entirely unconvincing.
> Maybe the user *wants* to see the local behavior of shift, whatever
> it might be. It's certainly not impossible that we'd break applications
> that worked fine before (at least on the hardware they were being
> used on).
Cer
Roman Kononov napsal(a):
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4114
Logged by: Roman Kononov
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.3.1
Operating system: x86_64 GNU/Linux
Description:Inconsistent shift operator
Details:
The below
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 12:27:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sam Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Wouldn't it be easy to put some code like this in:
> > if (arg2 < 16)
> > return PG_RETURN_INT16(arg1 << arg2);
> > return PG_RETURN_INT16(0);
>
> This is a straw man. It covers *one* of
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 08:17:50PM +0200, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Roman Kononov napsal(a):
> >The below test cases show the obvious inconsistency between different
> >integer types.
>
> It seems to be OK regarding how C shift operator works. Try
Yes, but I interpret this behaviour as not being ver
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4119
Logged by: Buk
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.2.4,
Operating system: XP SP1
Description:Add foreign key fails for non-presence of a record that
does exist.
Details:
I'm trying to r
