On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 07:31:59PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 14:13, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Can anyone tell me if postgresql has problems with xeon processors?
> > If so, there is any fix or project of fix it?
>
> To PostgreSQL, there's no difference
"jacob koehler (RRes-Roth)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It would first have to be relicensed ...
> it would be interesting to know if it would be included, IFF the author
> publishes it under BSD.
This patch has been proposed and rejected before. It doesn't do the
SQL-standard syntax for recu
- Evgen DID publish this patch under GPL, see:
http://gppl.terminal.ru/README.html
We cannot use GPL code in PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is BSD licensed. As
to why on earth he GPL'd - I have no idea...
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe an
Jacob,
> cons:
> - its not standard SQL (uses oracle style syntax)
Which is, plain and simple, a deal-breaker. You can count on me to vote
against inclusion of any patch which uses non-standard SQL when a standard
syntax is available.
Further, the IS_CONNECTED_BY() function is available in /
On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 14:13, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone tell me if postgresql has problems with xeon processors?
> If so, there is any fix or project of fix it?
To PostgreSQL, there's no difference between a dual CPU machine with no
hyperthreading, and a single CPU machine
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 June 2004 20:42
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] recursive SQL
>
>
>
>
> jacob koehler (RRes-Roth) wrote:
>
> >hi,
> >
> >i am wondering what you think about including evgen potemkin's p
jacob koehler (RRes-Roth) wrote:
hi,
i am wondering what you think about including evgen potemkin's patch for recursive SQL
in the next postgres version:
http://gppl.terminal.ru/
[snip]
- Evgen DID publish this patch under GPL, see:
http://gppl.terminal.ru/README.html
It would first have to b
hi,
i am wondering what you think about including evgen potemkin's patch for recursive SQL
in the next postgres version:
http://gppl.terminal.ru/
cons:
- its not standard SQL (uses oracle style syntax)
pros:
- it would add a feature that many people miss already for ages. all existing
workarou
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It has been suggested a couple of times that we should use a different
> syntax for subtransactions than for main transactions. This would for
> example allow things like
>
>
> BEGIN;
> do something;
> SUBBEGIN;
It might be awkward for
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 09:12:33AM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > BEGIN;
> > ... do something ... ;
> > SUBBEGIN;
> > EXECUTE ...;
> > -- if it fails:
> > -- SUBABORT;
> > -- PREPARE ...;
> > -- SUBBEGIN;
> > -- EXEC
Gaetano,
I've been using C++ for 15 years and Java for 7. I like them both. Every
language has its pros and cons. C++ can be extremely powerful in the hands
of someone who knows how to use it.
I actually wrote the first version of Pl/Java in C++. However, I got strong
advice to rewrite it using p
> > I would be fine with changing the lifetime if an EXECUTE failure did
not
> > abort the current transaction. Then I could simply watch the return
> > code of the statement execution and prepare the statement on
> > demand...from my point of view, this would actually be the most
elegant
> > scen
12 matches
Mail list logo
