On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 9:11 AM Eduard Català
wrote:
> If no one else gives an opinion I will open a bug for at least, force an
> update of the documentation.
>
It's been seen and begun to be discussed over on -hackers [1].
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BHiwqFvkBCmfwkQX_yBqv
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 8:02 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
> The convention on these lists is to inline or bottom-post, please do not
> top-post.
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jonathan Strong
> wrote:
>
>> I've been away from coding for several years, but dusting off my chops
>> and getting b
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:02 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
> The convention on these lists is to inline or bottom-post, please do not
> top-post.
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jonathan Strong
> wrote:
>
>> I've been away from coding for several years, but dusting off my chops
>> and getting b
The convention on these lists is to inline or bottom-post, please do not
top-post.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jonathan Strong
wrote:
> I've been away from coding for several years, but dusting off my chops and
> getting back up to speed with PostgreSQL (love it!). So please forgive me
> if
I've been away from coding for several years, but dusting off my chops and
getting back up to speed with PostgreSQL (love it!). So please forgive me
if my early answers here come off as naive. But my understanding of this
suggests that you shouldn't be using "update" on a serial field. I'm
guessing
Hi developers,
We have a strange case where some rows are removed. I think it is a bug,
but before notifying it I prefer to ask here where I am wrong.
*Postgres 12*
Given the following structure:
create table parent ( id serial, constraint parent_pkey primary key (id))
partition by range (id);
cr
