On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 04:15:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe that in ecpg, the requirement is "support the data types
> defined by the C compiler", that is we should support long long with
> whatever width it actually has on the platform. Just about everyplace
Right.
We added that to ma
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Laurian Vostinar wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 6253
> Logged by: Laurian Vostinar
> Email address: lvosti...@servoy.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.0
> Operating system: Windows 7
> Description: JDB
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Stefan Franke wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 6241
> Logged by: Stefan Franke
> Email address: ste...@franke.ms
> PostgreSQL version: 9.1
> Operating system: any
> Description: JDBC: blob doesnot wo
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Lou Picciano wrote:
> From: "Lou Picciano"
> Subject: Compile bug: 9.1.1 with dtrace on OpenIndiana (OpenSolaris)?
>
> dtrace: failed to compile script utils/probes.d: "/usr/lib/dtrace/mpi.d",
> line 70: failed to resolve type genunix`kthread_t * for identifier
>
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:41 AM, pasman wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 6243
> Logged by: pasman
> Email address: pasma...@gmail.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.1.1
> Operating system: WinXP sp3
> Description: Strange result of to_date
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:34 AM, David Baumgold
wrote:
> I was building postgresql via Macports (with the debug flag on) and I saw
> this output -- including a notice to report this to
> pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org. So I'm doing so!
>
> ---> Configuring postgresql91
> DEBUG: Using compiler 'Mac
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Craig wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 6228
> Logged by: Craig
> Email address: lumberjackches...@gmail.com
> PostgreSQL version: 8.2
> Operating system: Windows Server 2008 R2
> Description: Faile
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Craig wrote:
>>
>> The following bug has been logged online:
>>
>> Bug reference: 6228
>> Logged by: Craig
>> Email address: lumberjackches...@gmail.com
>> PostgreSQL version: 8.2
>> Operati
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:13 AM, eamanuel wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 6215
> Logged by: eamanuel
> Email address: eaman...@gmail.com
> PostgreSQL version: 8.4
> Operating system: Opernsuse 11.3
> Description: ODBC - ovelflow w
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, this problem isn't isolated to WITH queries:
>
> test=> do
> $$begin
> perform(
> select 1 UNION ALL select 1
> );
> end$$;
> ERROR: more than one row returned by a subquery used as an ex
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I have another example of this issue with WIN1252. This line in a copy
>> file:
>>
>> 659446 828 1 /6???\bH@^W^Za$H???\b???@\\/ No
>> valid or unique HTTP objects found in XML response.
>>
>> Into this tab
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Pradeep D
wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 6195
> Logged by: Pradeep D
> Email address: pradeep.dharmavar...@live.com
> PostgreSQL version: all
> Operating system: Windows 7 64 bit SP1
> Description:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6261
Logged by: guenter abraham
Email address: abra...@itbb.de
PostgreSQL version: 9.1
Operating system: win 7 prof /64
Description:35.9. C-Language Functions
Details:
the import of C-Language Functions (Versi
As I tested, if you explicit appoint a union tag, the OpenBSD m4 and
GNU m4 work identically.
And This explicit definition just corresponding to the forward-declaration.
As mentioned in
http://www.gnu.org/s/bison/manual/html_node/Union-Decl.html
This feature is a POSIX extension.
I don't know wha
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Well, this problem isn't isolated to WITH queries:
>>
>> test=> do
>> $$begin
>> perform(
>> select 1 UNION ALL select 1
>> );
>> end$$;
>>
Robert Young writes:
> As I tested, if you explicit appoint a union tag, the OpenBSD m4 and
> GNU m4 work identically.
> And This explicit definition just corresponding to the forward-declaration.
> As mentioned in
> http://www.gnu.org/s/bison/manual/html_node/Union-Decl.html
> This feature is a
Merlin Moncure writes:
> The point being, how do I convert any query to a non WITH variant so
> it can be PERFORM'd? Anyways, I always thought having to do perform
> at all was pretty weak sauce -- not sure why it's required.
Possibly it was an Oracle compatibility thing ... anyone know PL/SQL
w
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think it wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to just interpret a
> SELECT with no INTO clause as being a PERFORM (ie execute and
> discard results).
FWIW, that would probably confuse people coming from MS SQL Server
or Sybase ASE, since doing that in Transact-SQL would return
I wrote:
> Merlin Moncure writes:
>> The point being, how do I convert any query to a non WITH variant so
>> it can be PERFORM'd? Anyways, I always thought having to do perform
>> at all was pretty weak sauce -- not sure why it's required.
> Possibly it was an Oracle compatibility thing ... anyo
On 10/20/2011 05:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Merlin Moncure writes:
The point being, how do I convert any query to a non WITH variant so
it can be PERFORM'd? Anyways, I always thought having to do perform
at all was pretty weak sauce -- not sure why it's required.
Possibly it was an Or
2011/10/19 Tom Lane :
> I wrote:
>> Merlin Moncure writes:
>>> The point being, how do I convert any query to a non WITH variant so
>>> it can be PERFORM'd? Anyways, I always thought having to do perform
>>> at all was pretty weak sauce -- not sure why it's required.
>
>> Possibly it was an Oracl
>
>
> I suppose you could argue that selecting a value and implicitly throwing
> it away is confusing to novices, but on the other hand I've seen a whole
> lot of novices confused by the need to write PERFORM instead of SELECT.
> I think it wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to just interpret a SELE
22 matches
Mail list logo
