Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:32 PM, semi-ambivalent wrote:
>> Thanks everyone for the pointers. I like the idea of getting rid of
>> the concatenated field even though it reduced the worst case query
>> time to one tenth of what I had been seeing. But for now I'm going to
>> ke
2009/9/2 Markus Wanner :
> Hi,
>
> I've added a wiki page with some information you might find helpful, if you
> are attending the PostgreSQL Conference 2009 in Japan. However, I've never
> been to Tokyo before, so please feel free to correct and add better links,
> hints and recommendations:
>
> h
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Timothy Madden writes:
> > Can the string literal syntax for the function body in a CREATE FUNCTION
> > statement please,
> > please be dropped ?
>
> No. Since the function's language might be anything, there's no way to
> identify the end of t
On Sunday 25 October 2009 9:17:04 am Timothy Madden wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Timothy Madden writes:
> > > Can the string literal syntax for the function body in a CREATE
> > > FUNCTION statement please,
> > > please be dropped ?
> >
> > No. Since the function
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> There is a SQL standard for this, and other DBMS look like they found a way
>
> How come it can not be done ?
It *can* be done, but it won't be done. At least not by default. You might
get better traction if you perhaps argue for a flag to pg_
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Sunday 25 October 2009 9:17:04 am Timothy Madden wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Timothy Madden writes:
> > > > Can the string literal syntax for the function body in a CREATE
> > > > FUNCTION statement
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> > There is a SQL standard for this, and other DBMS look like they found a
> way
> >
> > How come it can not be done ?
>
> It *can* be done, but it won't be done. At least not b
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Timothy Madden wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday 25 October 2009 9:17:04 am Timothy Madden wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > > Timothy Madden writes:
>> > > > Can the string literal
Timothy Madden escribió:
> Just like when I write C++ applications I use standards-conforming
> C++, when I write SQL applications I would like to use
> standard-conforming SQL.
Sadly, we don't have standards-conformant SQL/PSM. Right now, we have a
lot of different languages for functions, none
Timothy Madden writes:
> What I want is compatible with existing code and the current default
> behavior. Just look for a LANGUAGE SQL declaration in the function
> header (before the body).
> If found expect the in-place definition of the function body to follow.
> If not found expect a string
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Timothy Madden
> wrote:
> > Just like when I write C++ applications I use standards-conforming C++,
> when
> > I write SQL
> > applications I would like to use standard-conforming SQL.
>
> But as soon as the
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Timothy Madden escribió:
>
> > Just like when I write C++ applications I use standards-conforming
> > C++, when I write SQL applications I would like to use
> > standard-conforming SQL.
>
> Sadly, we don't have standards-conformant SQL/PSM
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Timothy Madden writes:
> > What I want is compatible with existing code and the current default
> > behavior. Just look for a LANGUAGE SQL declaration in the function
> > header (before the body).
>
> > If found expect the in-place definition
Timothy Madden escribió:
> Anyway Posgres offers a CREATE FUNCTION statement that resembles or should
> resemble that in the standard, and that is what I am talking about.
"Should" being the operative word in that sentence. If you want to
submit a patch to move us closer towards the SQL/PSM goal
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Timothy Madden escribió:
>
> > Anyway Posgres offers a CREATE FUNCTION statement that resembles or
> should
> > resemble that in the standard, and that is what I am talking about.
>
> "Should" being the operative word in that sentence. If
On Sunday 25 October 2009 3:20:51 pm Timothy Madden wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Timothy Madden writes:
> > > What I want is compatible with existing code and the current default
> > > behavior. Just look for a LANGUAGE SQL declaration in the function
> > > head
On Sunday 25 October 2009 4:06:33 pm Timothy Madden wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Timothy Madden escribió:
> > > Anyway Posgres offers a CREATE FUNCTION statement that resembles or
> >
> > should
> >
> > > resemble that in the standard, and that is
Timothy Madden escribió:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote:
>
> > Timothy Madden escribió:
> >
> > > Anyway Posgres offers a CREATE FUNCTION statement that resembles
> > > or should resemble that in the standard, and that is what I am
> > > talking about.
> >
> > "Should"
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> SQL/PSM is a different beast than all the rest of the PLs, because it is
> standard, so I am sure that we will want to implement the standard
> syntax (no string literal) when we have SQL/PSM. But implementing no-
> string-literals before we get full SQL/PSM support would
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:17:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote about Re: [GENERAL]
Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be
dropped ?:
[snip]
> ::=
>
> |
>
> ::=
>
>and seems to allow one (count em, one) SQL
>DDL or DML statement. So p
I work on my thesis on spatial database indeksing using Btree n GiST.
Can you help to explain how the GiST and btree indexing work in
postgresql ( the algorithm ) ? Can somone show me how to write code to
know the tree level and count the root and leaf ?
thanks for the information n help .
--
Le 24/10/09 22:57, Pavel Stehule a écrit :
2009/10/24 Bruno Baguette :
Which one would you advise me to learn and use, instead of PL/pgSQL ?
It depends on what you are know (if you known better perl or pthon).
Usually I using mainly plpgsql and on some functions plperl and C.
plpgsql is good l
2009/10/26 Tom Lane :
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> SQL/PSM is a different beast than all the rest of the PLs, because it is
>> standard, so I am sure that we will want to implement the standard
>> syntax (no string literal) when we have SQL/PSM. But implementing no-
>> string-literals before we ge
23 matches
Mail list logo
