The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/pgupgrade.html
Description:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/pgupgrade.html tells
"You can use pg_upgrade --check to perform only the checks, even if the old
server is still running."
I
PG Doc comments form writes:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/pgupgrade.html tells
> "You can use pg_upgrade --check to perform only the checks, even if the old
> server is still running."
I tested this case, and it seems to work for me. pg_upgrade will try
to start a server in the old data
It appears that in With-queries (CTE) the ON CASCADE DELETE deletions
happen at the very end of the entire statement. I have two questions about
this:
(1) Is this a correct observation?
(2) Is this intentional behavior, or only an accident of the implementation?
I can't find anything in the docs
Kirk Parker writes:
> It appears that in With-queries (CTE) the ON CASCADE DELETE deletions
> happen at the very end of the entire statement. I have two questions about
> this:
> (1) Is this a correct observation?
> (2) Is this intentional behavior, or only an accident of the implementation?
I b
On Wednesday, September 4, 2024, Kirk Parker wrote:
>
> And the relevance to this current list is: if it IS intended behavior, can
> it be documented somewhere?
>
It’s follows from this paragraph:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/queries-with.html#QUERIES-WITH-MODIFYING
The sub-stateme
> The sub-statements in WITH are executed concurrently
That much I did get from the docs. Given each sub-statement is qualified
by the RETURNING results of the previous one, that should at least
guarantee the completeness of each query regardless of the order in which
individual rows are affect
