From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:04 AM
Robert Haas writes:
>> Maybe, but in that case shouldn't referencing a system column chuck an
error?
> Yeah, possibly. I think none of them are populated with anything useful
> during INSERT checks (though OID mig
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 09:34:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom, can you comment on this patch because you commented on the previous
> > version? Thanks.
>
> Doesn't that provoke a pile of compiler warnings about local variables
> potentially being altered during longjm
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:19:14PM +0100, Rikard Pavelic wrote:
>> On 13.3.2012. 20:49, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> > I personally think it's an oversight. This was just discussed a
>> > couple of days ago here:
>> > http://postgresql.1045698.n
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:19:14PM +0100, Rikard Pavelic wrote:
>> On 13.3.2012. 20:49, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>> I personally think it's an oversight. This was just discussed a
>>> couple of days ago here:
>>> http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Altering-a-table-with-
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:29:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Given the lack of complaints since 9.0, maybe we should not fix this
> >>> but just redefine the ne
here's my sense from what I've done in this area so far.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:19:14PM +0100, Rikard Pavelic wrote:
> >> On 13.3.2012. 20:49, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >>> I personally think it's an oversight. This
