On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:51 AM Pavel Stehule
wrote:
>
>
> po 30. 11. 2020 v 4:24 odesílatel David G. Johnston <
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com> napsal:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 12:49 AM Pavel Stehule
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:25 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:11:04AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Can we please just address this docs issue? If you don't like my
> solution can
> > you please supply a patch that you feel addresses the problem? Or
> clearly state
> > that
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:42 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> The downside is you end up with X-1 dummy sections just to allow for
> references to old syntax, and you then have to find them all and remove
> them when you implement the proper solution. I have no intention of
> applying such an X-1 fi
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:15 PM Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> On 30.11.20 20:45, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> > As far as I see something got committed and now the discussion is stuck
> in arguing about parenthesis.
> > FWIW, I think it is a matter of personal taste. Maybe we can compromise
> on simply
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 6:59 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> +01 indicates that there's timezone information added to the data, so
> the rows aren't identical. Here's some more SQL run on my laptop which
> shows that
>
This is indeed true but examples that use the textual representation of the
data d
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:16 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 2020-10-12 23:54, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > --- a/doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml
> > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml
> > @@ -722,6 +722,8 @@ test ! -f
> > /mnt/server/ar
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:28 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 2020-12-31 04:28, David Fetter wrote:
> > This could probably use a lot of filling in, but having it in the
> > actual documentation beats needing to know folklore even to know
> > that the capabilit
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:59 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 4:47 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > If people want changes, I need to hear about it here. I have address
> > everything people have mentioned in these threads so far.
>
> That does not match my perception of the situation
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:03 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:51 PM Masahiro Ikeda
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, thanks for the reviews.
> >
> > I updated the attached patch.
>
> Thank you for updating the patch!
>
Your original email with "total number of times" is more correct, re
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:37 PM Masahiro Ikeda
wrote:
>
> I agree with your comments. I think it should report when
> reaching the end of WAL too. I add the code to report the stats
> when finishing the current WAL segment file when timeout in the
> main loop and when reaching the end of WAL.
>
>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:56 PM Masahiro Ikeda
wrote:
>
> > (wal_write)
> > The number of times WAL buffers were written out to disk via XLogWrite
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> I thought it's better to omit "The" and "XLogWrite" because other views'
> description
> omits "The" and there is no description
On Sunday, February 7, 2021, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> Hi,
> # SELECT '[[5,2],"a",[8,[3,2],6]]'::jsonb;
> jsonb
> ---
> [[5, 2], "a", [8, [3, 2], 6]]
> (1 row)
>
> unnest(array[[3,2],"a",[1,4]]) is not accepted currently.
>
> Would the enhanced unnest accept th
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 11:39 AM Pavel Stehule
wrote:
>
>
> ne 7. 2. 2021 v 19:18 odesílatel Zhihong Yu napsal:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> bq. SELECT unnest('[[5,2],"a",[8,[3,2],6]]'::jsonb);
>>
>> Since the array without cast is not normal array (and would be rejected),
>> I wonder if the cast is needed.
>>
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:45 PM Masahiro Ikeda
wrote:
> I pgindented the patches.
>
>
... XLogWrite, which is invoked during an
XLogFlush request (see ...). This is also incremented
by the WAL receiver during replication.
("which normally called" should be "which is normally called" or "which
no
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 8:15 AM Zhenghua Lyu wrote:
> I run the SQL without array expr in other DBs(orcale, sqlite, ...), they
> all behave
> the same as Postgres.
>
> It seems a bit confusing for me that 'not in' and 'in' the same subquery
> both return 0
> rows, but the table contains data.
>
B
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> A question I always have, and I didn´t find anybody answering it. If it´s
> possible
> select * from MyDB.MySchema.MyTable;
>
No, if you specify MyDB is must match the database you’ve chosen to log
into.
> Everything I found was how to c
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:12 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 07:30:48AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> - # safe: cross compilers may not add the suffix if given an `-o'
> + # safe: cross compilers may not add the suffix if given a `-o'
> # argument, so we may need to kno
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:32 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:25 AM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> >
> >> - # safe: cross compilers may not add the suffix if given an `-o'
> >> + # safe: cross compilers may not add the suffix if given a
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 5:35 AM Shay Rojansky wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've received numerous complaints about CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS
> failing when the user lacks CREATE privileges on the database - even if the
> schema already exists. A typical scenario would be a multi-tenant
> schema-per-ten
On Wednesday, December 15, 2021, Shay Rojansky wrote:
>
> . Now, before creating tables, the ORM generates CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT
> EXISTS, to ensure that the schema exists before CREATE TABLE; that's
> reasonable general-purpose behavior.
>
If the user hasn’t specified they want the schema created
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 3:38 AM Shay Rojansky wrote:
> >> Now, before creating tables, the ORM generates CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT
> EXISTS, to ensure that the schema exists before CREATE TABLE; that's
> reasonable general-purpose behavior.
> >
> > If the user hasn’t specified they want the schema cre
On Thursday, December 16, 2021, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> Also, here seem to be some use cases. For example,
> - when you want to delete the specified number of rows from a table
> that doesn't have a primary key and contains tuple duplicated.
Not our problem…use the tools correctly; there is al
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 2:07 PM Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 12/18/21 15:57, Chapman Flack wrote:
> > I see that I can set
> > a HISTFILE variable (or set PSQL_HISTORY in the environment),
> > and can set PSQLRC in the environment (but not as a variable),
> > and nothing can set the .pgpass location
On Saturday, December 25, 2021, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> I've revisited the idea to somehow use foreign keys to do joins,
>
>
-1
> This is somewhat addressed by the USING join form, but USING has other
> drawbacks, why I tend to avoid it except for one-off queries.
>
I find this sufficient.
On Friday, January 14, 2022, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> ,
>
> On 1/14/22 00:02, Petar Dambovaliev wrote:
>
>>
>> the error code is `-1` and the error text is `invalid ordering of
>> speculative insertion changes`
>>
>
> Which Postgres version is this, exactly? Was the WAL generated by that
> same vers
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 7:13 AM Hellmuth Vargas wrote:
>
> ?? Well, the truth does not show the data that I request, what I request
> is that by configuring some parameter, the size of the obtained records can
> be obtained from the execution of a query something similar to the
> log_min_duration_
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021, 09:29 FATIHI Ayoub wrote:
> Hi postgres community,
> I am willing to participate in GSoC to speed up the build of the gist
> index in postgis, which is based on postgresql.
>
You should mention and link to where you cross-posted this to Reddit.
On Tuesday, July 21, 2020, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> We hit this on v13b2 and verified it fails on today's HEAD (ac25e7b039).
>
> explain SELECT 1 FROM sites NATURAL JOIN sectors WHERE
> sites.config_site_name != sectors.sect_name ;
> ERROR: could not determine which collation to use for string com
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 6:30 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > There should be a note about this in the Postgres 13 release notes,
> > > for the usual reasons. More importantly, the "Allow hash aggregation
> > > to use disk storage for large aggr
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 8:17 PM osdba wrote:
> hi all:
>
> In Document "Table 59-1. Built-in GiST Operator Classes":
>
> "range_ops any range type && &> &< >> << <@ -|- = @> @>"， exist double "
> @>"，
>
> Should be "<@ @>" ?
>
>
It helps to reference the current version of the page (or provide a u
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:30 PM Noah Misch wrote:
>
> Interaction with dump/restore (including pg_upgrade) options:
> a. If the schema has a non-default ACL, dump/restore reproduces it.
>Otherwise, the new default prevails.
> b. Dump/restore always reproduces the schema ACL.
>
> Initial owner
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 2:43 PM Cary Huang wrote:
> There is currently no enforced minimum value for "idle_session_timeout"
> (except for value 0 for disabling the feature), so user can put any value
> larger than 0 and it could be very small like 500 or even 50 millisecond,
> this would make any
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:41 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 06:58:33AM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > I don't particularly want to remove the field, but we ought to
> > > change or remove the comment.
> >
> > I'm not concerned about the existence of
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:05 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 06:14:45AM +, Junfeng Yang wrote:
> > Hi hackers,
> >
>
> > Data in file "/tmp/data".
> >
> > 122,as\.d,adad
> > 133,sa dad,adadad
> >
> > Then execute
> >
> > copy test from '/tmp/data' DELIMITER ',';
> >
> > An en
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 6:21 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:26:53AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> > Whether to actually change the behavior of to_date is up for debate
> though I
> > would presume it would not be back-patched.
>
> OK, so,
On Monday, October 11, 2021, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> I don't think "just don't grant access to those other databases"
> is actually a proper answer- there is certainly a use-case for "I want
> user X to have read access to all tables in *this* database, and also
> allow them to connect to some o
On Monday, October 11, 2021, Prabhat Sahu
wrote:
>
> While using IMMUTABLE functions in index expression, we are getting below
> corruption on HEAD.
>
That function is not actually immutable (the system doesn’t check whether
your claim of immutability and the function definition match, its up to
On Thursday, October 14, 2021, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gilles Darold writes:
> > Le 14/10/2021 à 17:38, Jaime Casanova a écrit :
> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 01:16:45PM +0200, Gilles Darold wrote:
>
> > Why not, I will add it if there is a consencus about logging hidden
> > column use, this is not a b
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:59 AM Anna Akenteva
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been wondering about some things related to schema privileges:
>
> 1) Why do visibility rules apply to the \d command, but not to system
> tables? What is the purpose of hiding stuff from \d output while users
> can get the
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 8:52 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> We're fortunate
> that cloning a nonempty template database is rare already.
>
>
That, and a major use case for doing so is to quickly stage up testing data
in a new database (i.e., not a production use case). Though I could see
tenant-based prod
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 3:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Anyway, I think the default answer is "revert 92316a458 and keep the
> compatibility goalposts where they are". But I wanted to open up a
> discussion to see if anyone likes the other approach better.
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 7:49 AM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 3:15 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
> >
> > Add new predefined role pg_maintenance, which can issue VACUUM,
> > ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.
>
>
> Are there any other database activities tha
On Friday, October 29, 2021, Joel Mariadasan (jomariad)
wrote:
> Detected by Automated Scanning tool:
>
> *libxml 2.9.10*
>
>
>
> Can you confirm if this is the same version of libxml used in Postgres?
>
> We want to confirm if the detection is a false positive or a vulnerability.
>
>
>
IIUC (t
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:14 PM Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 11/2/21 4:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > There's bound to be somebody who wants to grant some of
> > these permissions and not others, or who wants to grant the ability to
> > run those commands on some tables but not others.
> Is there anythi
On Thursday, November 4, 2021, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 22 Mar 2021, at 20:40, David Oksman wrote:
> >
> > Added the ability to specify IF EXISTS when renaming a column of an
> object (table, view, etc.).
> > For example: ALTER TABLE distributors RENAME COLUMN IF EXISTS address TO
> city;
On Friday, November 5, 2021, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> I know that, I'm just not convinced that it's a feature (in the case at
> hand)
>
I don’t see how this one should be expected to meet a higher bar than drop
table or other existing commands. I get why in the nearby discussion
create role
On Friday, November 5, 2021, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I'd be more willing to overlook that if a clear use-case had been
> given, but AFAICS no concrete case has been offered.
>
>
The use case is the exact same one for all of these - indempotence,
especially in the face of being able to run migration sc
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 8:08 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'd be more willing to overlook that if a clear use-case had been
> >> given, but AFAICS no concrete case has been off
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 8:37 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Making renaming work in the same kind of context is harder. You're
> definitely going to have to upgrade the application and the schema in
> lock step, unless the application is smart enough to work with the
> column having either name. You'r
On Saturday, November 6, 2021, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> Ok, subject was a bit philosophical but this message I just found is
> quite confusing.
>
> """
> regression=# select cast(null as anyrange) &> cast(null as anymultirange);
> ERROR: argument declared anymultirange is not a multirange type bu
On Sunday, November 7, 2021, Tatsuro Yamada
wrote:
>
> According to the source code [1], there is no check if a schema
> option is added. As a result, a role that is not granted can see
> other roles' object names.
> We might say it's okay because it's a name, not contents (data),
> but It seems
On Sunday, November 7, 2021, Tatsuro Yamada
wrote:
>
> I have a question that is a specification of permission check
> (visibilityrule) for psql meta-command with schema option.
>
> From the above results, I expected "\dX s_a.*" doesn't show any info
> as same as "\dX". but info is displayed. I'm
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 5:23 PM Tatsuro Yamada <
tatsuro.yamada...@nttcom.co.jp> wrote:
>
> > I'm not confident that if I would use this, so let's wait to see if
> someone
> > else wants to give a +1.
>
> Okay, but you agree that there are DBAs and users who want to see the
> list of constraints,
On Monday, November 15, 2021, David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> If the only motivation for this is "feature completion" - since we have so
> many other \d commands already implemented - I say we should pass.
>
If anything, doing this for triggers would be a much better featu
On Monday, November 15, 2021, Tatsuro Yamada
wrote:
>
>
> I don't know if this is a good example, but if you look at StackOverflow,
> it seems that people who want to see a list of constraints appear
> regularly.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62987794/how-to-list-all
> -constraints-of-a-ta
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 9:38 AM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> If nothing was changed, why create a new record, append data to wal, set
> old record as deleted, etc, etc ?
>
Because it takes resources to determine that nothing changed. If you want
to opt-in into that there is even an extension trigge
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:03 AM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> Because it takes resources to determine that nothing changed. If you want
>> to opt-in into that there is even an extension trigger that makes doing so
>> fairly simple. But it's off by default because the typical case is that
>> people
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:57 AM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> So, Postgres guys will have to review all code being done on apps ?
>>
>
>
I suppose if the application side cannot be trusted to code to a
specification without having the server side add validation and/or
compensation code to catch the b
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:20 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> You can't just skip doing updates without causing problems.
>
>
Given you can do exactly this by using a trigger this statement is either
false or I'm missing some piece of knowledge it relies upon.
David J.
On Sunday, November 21, 2021, Andy Fan wrote:
>
> Should we guarantee the sequence's nextval should never be rolled back
> even in a crashed recovery case?
> I can produce the rollback in the following case:
>
This seems to be the same observation that was made a little over a year
ago.
https://
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Damir Simunic wrote:
> Would it be the only protocol supported? What if I wanted JSON or CSV
> returned, or just plain old Postgres v3 binary format, since I already have
> the parser written for it? Wouldn’t you need to first solve the problem of
> content negoti
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:43:27AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > Patch attached with the above behavior along with other comments from
> > upthread.
>
> Thanks for the updated version.
>
> The function changes look logically good to me.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> updated patch attached with additional doc updates as per the suggestion
> from the upthreads.
>
-
Some comments if the patch remains in-tact:
Lower-case "i" in "It is not" in the
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> Are there some possible alternatives?
>>>
>>
>> Given the date and the fact that the cf end is 3 days away, the proposed
>> short term alternative is Daniel's version, that I feel is reasonable. Ok,
>> people have to do two pset to get comma-
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Are there some possible alternatives?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Given the date and the fact that the cf end is 3 days away, the proposed
&
On Monday, March 26, 2018, Daniel Verite wrote:
>
> We could even support only the comma and make it non-configurable
> based on the fact it's Comma-Separated-Values, not
> Whatever-Separated-Values, except that won't do much
> to serve the users interests, as the reality is that
> people use var
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>
> And if we introduce csv-specific fieldsep, then we multiply this wrong
>> design. The fix in this direction is renaming fieldsep to fieldsep-unaliagn
>> - but it is probably too big change too. So this design is nothing what I
>> can mark a
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Isaac Morland
wrote:
> On 28 March 2018 at 15:43, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> On 03/28/2018 12:35 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>
>> I like to call it "Character Separated Values" now for just that reason.
>>
>>
&
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Isaac Morland
wrote:
>
> One question I would have is: what proposals exist or have existed for
> additional privilege bits? How much pressure is there to use some of the
> remaining bits? I actually looked into the history of the permission bits
> and found th
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Daniel Verite
wrote:
> David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> > Unaligned format could grow its own fieldsep if it wanted to but it can
> > also just use the default provided fieldsep var whose default value is
> > pipe. If it did g
On Thursday, March 29, 2018, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-03-29 13:26:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > Also, in a way, you could argue that v10 already did "compilation of
> > expressions". It didn't compile them to machine language, true, but
> > it translated them into a form which is fast
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Daniel Verite
wrote:
> Personally I think the benefit of sharing fieldsep is not worth these
> problems, but I'm waiting for the discussion to continue with
> more opinions.
Apologies in advance if I mis-represent someone's position.
It seems like having a d
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
>
> > Questions:
> >
> > - I'm not perfectly happy with
> > "tuple to be locked was already moved to another partition due to
> concurrent update"
> > as the error message. If somebody
On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
> wrote:
> > If there are no strong objections I am going to add this to the “Older
> Bugs”
> > section of Open Items in a little bit.
>
> I strongly object. This is not a bug. The TABLESPACE cl
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:07:18PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > In PG10 the planner's partition pruning could be disabled by changing
> > the constraint_exclusion GUC to off. This is still the case for PG11,
> > but only for UPDATE and DE
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:12 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 18 April 2018 at 13:03, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> > My initial reaction is that we need to fix the bug introduced in v10 -
> > leaving constraint_exclusion working as it has historically and not
> affect
> &g
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 9:19 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> >
> >We invented jsonb_set() (credit to Dmitry Dolgov). And we've had it
> >since 9.5. That's five releases ago. So it's a bit late to be coming to
> >us telling us it's not safe (according to your preconceptions of what it
> >should be doing
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 5:31 AM Andrew Dunstan <
andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> And yet another is to
> raise an exception, which is easy to write but really punts the issue
> back to the application programmer who will have to decide how to ensure
> they never pass in a NULL parameter.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 3:51 PM Andrew Dunstan <
andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I'm not arguing against the idea of improving the situation. But I am
> arguing against a minimal fix that will not provide much of value to a
> careful app developer. i.e. I want to do more to support app de
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 7:51 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:07:47PM -0300, Martín Marqués wrote:
> > El 28/2/19 a las 15:13, David Steele escribió:
> > +
> > + The exclusive backup method is deprecated and should be avoided in
> > favor
> > + of the non-exclusive
On Friday, March 1, 2019, Matt Pulver wrote:
> However the query "SELECT 1.0/0.0;" produces an exception:
>
> ERROR: division by zero
>
>
> Question: If Infinity and NaN are supported, then why throw an exception
> here, instead of returning Infinity? Is it purely for historical reasons,
> or if
On Friday, March 1, 2019, Chapman Flack wrote:
>
> But if someone wanted to write a user-defined division function or
> operator that would return Inf for (anything > 0) / 0 and for
> (anything < 0) / -0, and -Inf for (anything < 0) / 0 and for
> (anything > 0) / -0, and NaN for (either zero) / (
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:07 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > I'm going to mark this as rejected. Here's a possible doc patch
>
> Maybe s/strictly/ordinary/, or some other word? "strictly"
> doesn't convey much to me. Otherwise seems fine.
>
How about:
While the COALESCE, GRE
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:14 PM Isaac Morland
wrote:
> I'm looking at https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-analyze.html,
> where it says “Without a table_and_columns list, ANALYZE processes every
> table and materialized view in the current database that the current user
> has permission to
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:42 PM Isaac Morland
wrote:
> Thanks. So presumably I would also have permission if I have SET ROLEd to
> the owner, or to a role which is an INHERIT member of the owner.
>
Yes, the table ownership role check walks up the role membership hierarchy
if "inherit" is on for t
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Diego Silva e Silva
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The first function call is 10 times slower than the other calls in the
> same session. Is it possible to shorten this long time on the first call?
> For example. Call my function for once, this call returns at 70ms on the
>
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> db=# select count(s.nspname) from pg_class c join pg_namespace s on s.oid
> = c.relnamespace where s.nspname in ('public');
> count
> ---
> 0
> (1 row)
>
> It is based on the idea that the database is not empty if there are any
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Would it be true to say that if this query returned more than zero rows
> the database is not empty?
>
> db=# select distinct s.nspname from pg_class c join pg_namespace s on
> s.oid = c.relnamespace where s.nspname not in ('pg_toast','info
On Monday, January 22, 2018, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> In the end, I feel like this patch has actually been through the ringer
> and back because it was brought up in the context of solving a problem
> that we'd all like to fix in a better way. Had it been simply dropped
> on us as a "I'd like to
Hey all!
This doesn't come up that often but enough that it seems hammering home
that multi-dimension <> array-of-array seems warranted.
The first and last chuck cover definition and iteration respectively. The
second chuck removes the mention of "subarray" since that's what we don't
want people
On Tuesday, January 23, 2018, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:22:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> (a) it's got hard
> > limits we're approaching,
> All agreed, but what alternatives are being developed?
>
>
I seem to recall a proposal a while back to gain margin on some of the
l
On Wednesday, January 24, 2018, Tom Lane wrote:
> and it has a bunch of strange
> behaviors that can really only be characterized as bugs. An example is
> that
>
> pg_dump --create -t sometable somedb
>
>
pg_dump -t:
"The -n and -N switches have no effect when -t is used, because tables
On Wednesday, January 24, 2018, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
> This does not go all the way towards making pg_restore's item selection
> switches dump subsidiary objects the same as pg_dump would, because
> pg_restore doesn't really have enough info to deal with indexes and
> table constraints the way pg_d
On Wednesday, January 24, 2018, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I think you might be missing one of the main points here, which is
> that --create is specified as causing both a CREATE DATABASE and a
> reconnect to that database.
>
I missed the implication though I read and even thought about questioning
tha
On Thursday, January 25, 2018, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The documentation currently says
>
> The CONSTANT option prevents the variable from being assigned to
> after initialization, so that its value will remain constant for
> the duration of the block.
>
While we don't really
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:55 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 28 January 2018 at 12:00, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> > On 01/27/2018 10:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> David Rowley writes:
> >>> I'd offer to put it back to the order of the enum, but I want to
> >>> minimise the invasiveness of the patch. I'
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We could imagine reimplementing WinGetFuncArgInFrame to fix this, but
> aside from the sheer inefficiency of simple fixes, I'm not very clear
> what seeking relative to WINDOW_SEEK_CURRENT should mean when the current
> row is excluded. (Of cour
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Oliver Ford wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:46 AM, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>
> > The three callers of WinGetFuncArgInFrame don't use the isout argument;
> they
> > probably need to read that and a new isexcluded argument. Star
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:09 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>
> The proposal has blockers:
>
> - We don't actually have logical decoding for DDL, although I'm given
> to understand that Álvaro Herrera has done some yeoman follow-up
> work on Dimitri Fontaine's PoC patches.
> - We don't have logical d
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <
ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, this used to be the case, and is the reason behind the original
> > recommendation. It's what they call the "dumb HTTP protocol" in the
> > docs. This is not the case when you use git-http-backend
101 - 200 of 1514 matches
Mail list logo
