On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 7:54 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 7/13/20 10:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alexander Korotkov writes:
> >> Good compromise. Done as you proposed.
> >
> > I'm OK with this version.
>
> I saw this was committed and the item was adjusted on the Open Items list.
Thank you!
On 7/13/20 10:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
>> Good compromise. Done as you proposed.
>
> I'm OK with this version.
I saw this was committed and the item was adjusted on the Open Items list.
Thank you!
Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> Good compromise. Done as you proposed.
I'm OK with this version.
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 10:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
> > The proposed patch is attached. This patch is fixes two points:
> > * Adds strategy number and purpose to output of \dAo
> > * Renames "Left/right arg type" columns of \dAp to "Registered left/right
> > type"
>
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> The proposed patch is attached. This patch is fixes two points:
> * Adds strategy number and purpose to output of \dAo
> * Renames "Left/right arg type" columns of \dAp to "Registered left/right
> type"
I think that \dAp should additionally be changed to print the
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 2:24 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:03 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> > From the RMT perspective, if there is an agreed upon approach (which it
> > sounds like from the above) can someone please commit to working on
> > resolving this open item?
>
>
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:03 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> From the RMT perspective, if there is an agreed upon approach (which it
> sounds like from the above) can someone please commit to working on
> resolving this open item?
I hardly can extract an approach from this thread, because for me the
On 7/7/20 6:09 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> I'm also wondering whether this is fully correct. Would it be possible for
>>> the
>>> argument types of the operator/function to differ from the left arg/right
>>> ar
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I'm also wondering whether this is fully correct. Would it be possible for
> > the
> > argument types of the operator/function to differ from the left arg/right
> > arg
> > types? (Perhaps binary compatible?)
>
> p
Sergey, Nikita, Alexander, if you can please see this thread and propose
a solution, that'd be very welcome.
On 2020-Jun-06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I'm also wondering whether this is fully correct. Would it be possible for
> > the
> > argument types of the operator/fun
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I'm also wondering whether this is fully correct. Would it be possible for
> the
> argument types of the operator/function to differ from the left arg/right arg
> types? (Perhaps binary compatible?)
pg_amop.h specifies that
* The primary key for this table is . am
11 matches
Mail list logo
