hi all,
tried this on pgsql-admin & darwin-kernel lists, and unfortunately, not a
'nibble' ...
can ne1 here spare a moment?
thanks!
richard
-- Forwarded Message --
hi all,
i've successfully built postgreSQL 7.3.2-STABLE on Mac OSX 10.2.4.
much trouble launching it led me to
Tom Lane kirjutas R, 14.03.2003 kell 19:15:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, just to throw out a wild idea: If you're talking about making large
> > changes to the on-the-wire protocol. Have you considered using an existing
> > database protocol?
>
> Yeah, I have. Didn't look prom
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would prefer leaving the formatting to client and have the backend
> provide a more semantic-type "markup". For example the newline character
> could be considered a paragraph break and within the paragraph the text
> just flows. (We could hack up
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 12:36:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm inclined to leave the code alone. But Alvaro is right that it'd be
> good to point out the 'infinity' option in the CREATE USER and ALTER
> USER man pages. (Doc patch please?)
Attached. (Please correct if it's not good english.)
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Given that we now need order-of-thirty possible field types, do you feel
>> uncomfortable with a single-byte field identifier in the FE/BE protocol?
> There's a possible solution: SQL99 part 3 defines numerical codes for
> each of
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It may be worth while to change the default for valuntil to be
> 'infinity'. NULL implies they will expire, we're just not sure when.
This is not the only place in the system catalogs where NULL is
effectively used to mean a default value that could also b
> I see now that one can use this syntax to make a user valid forever,
> though it is different than setting the value to NULL (as is when the
> user hasn't got a validity defined). This should be mentioned in the
> docs, I think.
It may be worth while to change the default for valuntil to be
'in
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 07:37:26AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 22:38:13 -0400,
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hackers,
> >
> > One can alter a user to set a validity timestamp. However, unless one
> > uses the ugly kludge of setting a date very far i
Tom Lane writes:
> I think a style guide should just say "Keep primary messages short".
Right.
> How about something like "Avoid tabs. Insert newlines as needed to keep
> message lines shorter than X characters. Keep in mind that client
> code might reformat long messages for its own purposes,
Tom Lane writes:
> Given that we now need order-of-thirty possible field types, do you feel
> uncomfortable with a single-byte field identifier in the FE/BE protocol?
> I'm still leaning that way on the grounds of compactness and programming
> simplicity, but I can see where someone might want to
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 22:38:13 -0400,
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> One can alter a user to set a validity timestamp. However, unless one
> uses the ugly kludge of setting a date very far into the future, there's
> no way to set this validity forever.
There is an i
11 matches
Mail list logo
