Quoting Georgi Georgiev at 24/01/2013-12:55:31(+0900):
> Quoting Devrim GÜNDÜZ at 23/01/2013-21:11:09(+0200):
...
> >
> > Should be fixed with 1.16.1-2. Please check.
>
> Thanks for the quick turnaround. But there seems to be a typo now, so
> the %post is not working:
1.16.1-3 does not thro
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7846
Logged by: Mike Sherrill
Email address: m...@fontling.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.6
Operating system: Ubuntu Linux 12.04
Description:
Documentation for the SQL UPDATE statement doesn't mention that
You nailed it, stupid typos.
Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you all for your assistance.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 February 2013 17:54, Colin Dunklau wrote:
>
>> For the below two queries, I expect to get a result of (0.5, 0.5).
>>
>> cdunklau=# select po
why?
because 1 on views didnt recreate after restoring from backup, we
had a table instead of view. that means incomplete backup without
even our knowledge (no warn,error), if its not a bug what other word
would be better to describe this?
and now the funny
Quoting Georgi Georgiev at 03/02/2013-13:19:52(+0900):
> Quoting Georgi Georgiev at 24/01/2013-12:55:31(+0900):
> > Quoting Devrim GÜNDÜZ at 23/01/2013-21:11:09(+0200):
> ...
> > >
> > > Should be fixed with 1.16.1-2. Please check.
> >
> > Thanks for the quick turnaround. But there seems to be a
"m...@fontling.com" wrote:
> Documentation for the SQL UPDATE statement doesn't mention that
> it sets the FOUND variable. (Refer to sql-update.html,
> "Outputs".) That behavior *is* documented, but only in
> plpgsql-statements.html (Basic Statements, section 39.5.5).
>
> I understand the differe
