Tom Lane wrote:
{
int32 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
int32 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT32(1);
+ int32 result;
! result = arg1 * arg2;
! /*
! * Overflow check. We basically check to see if result / arg2 gives
! * arg1 again. There are two cases where this fails: arg2 = 0 (which
! * ca
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 15:38:52 -0400,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Does anyone object to applying this for 8.0? I think we already had
> consensus that it's a good idea, but if not now's the time to speak up.
> (There are a couple of regression tests that fail and will need to be
>
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The reason the "char" arithmetic operators are dangerous is that they are
>> the only ones of those names in the STRING type category.
> What would happen if "char" were just removed from the STRING type category?
Wh
Kind people,
Please find enclosed an example of what I hope to make into a
generalized way of accessing external tabular data via SQL.
It is written in PL/PerlU for portability reasons, although it could
probably be re-written in C at the cost of some large amount of
effort. It depends on having
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What I'm inclined to do with these is change pg_proc.h but not force
> >> an initdb. Does anyone want to argue for an initdb to force it to be
> >> fixed in 8.0? We've lived with the wron
OK, that 8.0beta config file should find all your thread flags and
define them as PTHREAD_* in Makefile.global.
---
Christopher Browne wrote:
> After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian), an
> ea
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> I should have said within a single statement instead of within a single
>> transaction.
> As I understand Tom's earlier explanation of this, the definition is
> even more narrow: stable functions only need to return the same va
Magnus
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Hey all, its me again. If I do not do a count(product_id) on my
> >> tsearch2 queries, its actually really fast, for example;
> >>
> >
> >Hmm, I also really want to know what's the difference ?
> >Postgresql 8.0beta3 on Linux 2.4.25
> >
>
>> Hey all, its me again. If I do not do a count(product_id) on my
>> tsearch2 queries, its actually really fast, for example;
>>
>
>Hmm, I also really want to know what's the difference ?
>Postgresql 8.0beta3 on Linux 2.4.25
>
>tsearchd=# explain analyze select body from txt where
>fts_index @@
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Kris Kiger wrote:
> Hey all, its me again. If I do not do a count(product_id) on my
> tsearch2 queries, its actually really fast, for example;
>
Hmm, I also really want to know what's the difference ?
Postgresql 8.0beta3 on Linux 2.4.25
tsearchd=# explain analyze select bod
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: 03 October 2004 20:39
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [HACKERS] Checking for overflow of integer arithmetic
>
> 2. For the int2 and int8 operators, should we stick to a
> one-si
I'm working on a patch to detect overflow in the integer-arithmetic
operators. The first stage, covering the basic int4 operators, is
attached if anyone wants to comment on details. A couple of general
questions though:
1. Does anyone object to applying this for 8.0? I think we already had
cons
On Sun, 2004-10-03 at 06:33, stig erikson wrote:
> Hello.
> i have an slightly off topic question, but i hope that somebody might know.
>
> at the moment we have a database on a MS SQL 7 server.
> This data will be transfered to PostgreSQL 7.4.5 or PostgreSQL 8 (when
> it is released). so far so
Not that my 2c is worth 1c, but I second this. I'd rather initdb now
than get bitten by some catalog difference when I move my DB into
production. :)
--miker
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:22:50 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>
> > I'd prefer if all users of 8.0 were guaranteed to hav
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Gavin,
>
> > I agree that packages give us something like classes in that we can define
> > related functions/procs into a single namespace. They provide other
> > features like package level variables and public/private functionality. I
> > think they majo
After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian), an earthling,
wrote:
> config/acx_pthread.m4 should be testing all those thread flags and
> defining proper Makefile.global values for them. Do you want to
> send me your config.log offline or check ourself why the tests
> ar
Hello.
i have an slightly off topic question, but i hope that somebody might know.
at the moment we have a database on a MS SQL 7 server.
This data will be transfered to PostgreSQL 7.4.5 or PostgreSQL 8 (when
it is released). so far so good.
the question now arises, this current database is used
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
> Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > That's fairly bizarre (at least to my view of the world). Say we could
> > have OUT parameters which were of some SETOF style type I think that would
> > solve the same problem.
>
> That won't satify people moving over from MSSQL/Syba
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I concur with Grant Finnemore's objection as well: people expect
> >> procedures to be able to return resultsets, ie SETOF something,
> >> not only scalar values. Whether this is what SQL2003 says is not
> >> real
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 15:04:51 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 10:43:01 +0200,
There has been such a distinction for a major release or two. "Stable"
is how you mark a function that will return the same value within a
single trans
20 matches
Mail list logo
