> On 6 Jan 2016, at 03:47, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> In reflection, the only thing a CoC does is put in writing what behaviour we
> as a project already require, so why not document it and use it as a tool to
> encourage more contribution to our project?
I fully agree with you. No one would
On 16 April 2014 21:27, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> 2014-04-16 12:40 keltezéssel, Tony Theodore írta:
>> 1.0.0 isn't affected.
>
>
> The package version and the soversion are only loosely related.
> E.g .the upstream OpenSSL 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 series both ship soversion 1
On 16 April 2014 18:48, Dev Kumkar wrote:
> We embed certain binaries and libssl.so.1.0.0 gets shipped along with
> pre-build in-house database with product.
1.0.0 isn't affected.
Cheers,
Tony
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subs
On 12 April 2014 07:02, Moshe Jacobson wrote:
>
> I know this is a terribly old thread, but if you are still looking for
> software to provide an audit trail of changes in the database, please see
> Cyan Audit at http://pgxn.org/dist/cyanaudit. I think it will do just what
> you're looking for.
On 18 Nov 2013, at 2:24 pm, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> I haven't done work with this so I am not 100% sure but it seems to me based
> on other uses I have for table inheritance that it might work well for
> enforcing interfaces for natural joins. The one caveat I can imagine is that
> there ar
On 16 Nov 2013, at 3:01 am, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
> Well, here are the downsides. Composite types:
> *) are more than the sum of their parts performance-wise. So there is
> a storage penalty in both the heap and the index
> *) can't leverage indexes that are querying only part of the key
> *
On 15 Nov 2013, at 8:04 pm, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> In general, if you don't know you need composite types, you don't want them.
> You have basically three options and the way you are doing it is the most
> typical solution to the problem
The current way is much easier since I discovered th
Hi,
I was reading about composite types and wondering if I should use them instead
of composite keys. I currently have tables like this:
create table products (
source_system text,
product_id text,
description text,
...
primary key (source_system, product_
On 13/10/2013, at 9:15 AM, Chuck Davis wrote:
> the only appropriate way to get from one input field to the next is hitting
> the enter key.
Ha, I remember how blazing fast entry could be on old terminals with a field
exit key on the numeric keypad - particularly when standardised on 4-6 dig
On 09/10/2013, at 11:03 PM, Tony Theodore wrote:
> On 09/10/2013, at 8:39 PM, raghu ram wrote:
>>
>> ETL Tools for PostgreSQL::
>>
>> Definition: An ETL process data to load into the database from a flat file
>>
>> A. Extract
>> B. Transform
>
On 09/10/2013, at 8:39 PM, raghu ram wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:32 PM, sunpeng wrote:
> Hi, Friends, are there any ETL tools (free or commercial) available for
> PostgreSQL?
>
>
> ETL Tools for PostgreSQL::
>
> Definition: An ETL process data to load into the database from a flat
On 02/10/2013, at 6:49 PM, Tim Uckun wrote:
> >The reason for that is that in PostgreSQL there is no time zone
> information stored along with a "timestamp with time zone",
> it is stored in UTC.
>
> That seems unintuitive. What is the difference between timestamp without time
> zone and times
On 09/07/2013, at 2:20 PM, Mike Christensen wrote:
>
> PERFORM MyInsert(1,101,'2013-04-04','2013-04-04',2,'f' );
>
> I get the error:
>
> ERROR: syntax error at or near "PERFORM"
> SQL state: 42601
> Character: 1
>
> Is the FAQ out of date or was this feature removed? I'm using 9.2.1. Thank
On 18/02/2013, at 9:09 AM, Tim Uckun wrote:
>>
>> In some way, every join is a cross join, with the results filtered according
>> to the specificity of the join conditions. In this case:
>>
>> inner join model_configurations mc on left(crm.customer_class, 6) =
>> left(mc.sap_code,6)
>>
>> "
On 18/02/2013, at 7:58 AM, Tim Uckun wrote:
>> Apparently the first 6 characters of those fields are quite common, which
>> gives you a result for every possible combination of the same 6-character
>> value.
>
>
> M. That seems kind of weird. Is there any way to NOT have this
> be a cros
On 12/01/2013, at 12:47 PM, T. E. Lawrence wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a pretty standard query with two tables:
>
> SELECT table_a.id FROM table_a a, table_b b WHERE ... AND ... AND b.value=...;
>
> With the last "AND b.value=..." the query is extremely slow (did not wait for
> it to end, but
16 matches
Mail list logo
