-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Volkmann
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 9:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [HACKERS] Charset WIN1252
Hello Developers,
now, where the native Win32-Version of PostgreSQL is nearly ready for
Produ
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Updated TODO:
> * Allow the creation of bitmap indexes which can be quickly combined
> with other bitmap indexes
This TODO item description is fundamentally misleading.
The point was *not* about making "bitmap indexes", which on its face
suggests a p
Hello Developers,
now, where the native Win32-Version of PostgreSQL is nearly ready for
Production use, I'm still missing support of WIN1252 charset. And UTF-8
can't be used on server side in West Europe, because it's implementation
isn't complete yet (e.g. upper() / lower() missing for umlauts).
Updated TODO:
* Allow the creation of bitmap indexes which can be quickly combined
with other bitmap indexes
Bitmap indexes index single columns that can be combined with other bitmap
indexes to dynamically create a composite index to match a specific query.
Each index is a bitmap, and t
On Wednesday 03 November 2004 18:06, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Tom,
>
> >What you think is non-intrusive may not be so at the database's level.
>
> I know. But thats not my point. Look at this this way:
>
> I'd like to declare a function STABLE. And I'd like to trust that
> declaration 100%. So a st
"Hicham G. Elmongui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I have a TupleTableSlot, and I need to obtain another TupleTableSlot with
> a different TupleDesc (same fields but different order). Is there a way to
> do it without that I go myself and try to retrieve the fields and form the
> tuple myself? I
If I have a TupleTableSlot, and I need to obtain another TupleTableSlot with
a different TupleDesc (same fields but different order). Is there a way to
do it without that I go myself and try to retrieve the fields and form the
tuple myself? In other words, are there functions already in postgres th
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >I turns out I have not been reviewing all patches kept during the beta
> >period for releases 7.2-7.4. I have gone though the kept emails and
> >found 37 messages that need review:
> >
> > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches3
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I turns out I have not been reviewing all patches kept during the beta
period for releases 7.2-7.4. I have gone though the kept emails and
found 37 messages that need review:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches3
I would like to know which should be discarde
Tom,
What you think is non-intrusive may not be so at the database's level.
I know. But thats not my point. Look at this this way:
I'd like to declare a function STABLE. And I'd like to trust that
declaration 100%. So a stable function must *never* call a function that
is VOLATILE. Not directl
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Greg Stark wrote:
> >> Actually the sort algorithm postgres uses would be much more efficient if it
> >> could get access to two or three locations guaranteed to be on different
> >> spindles.
>
> > Agreed, and I was going to mention
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>> Actually the sort algorithm postgres uses would be much more efficient if it
>> could get access to two or three locations guaranteed to be on different
>> spindles.
> Agreed, and I was going to mention the idea of a round-robin allo
Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Rationale for my opinion is that since there is a need to accomplish
> what Gaetano needs, there should be declarative power to express it and
> thus, prevent "unsafe" designs. We need a way to declare a function
> "stable with no _intrusive_ sid
I turns out I have not been reviewing all patches kept during the beta
period for releases 7.2-7.4. I have gone though the kept emails and
found 37 messages that need review:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches3
I would like to know which should be discarded and which kept fo
just to follow up.
On i386/mipsel/mips I get the following for pow(10,309)
ERROR: result is out of range
on alpha, I get 3.09434604738258e-308
-- Original Message ---
From: "Jim Buttafuoco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pgsql-hackers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:4
I am still having this problem with the latest CSV snapshot. Is anyone else running
on an Alpha. Can any of the
hackers point me to where in the code this might be failing?
Thanks
Jim
-- Forwarded Message ---
From: "Jim Buttafuoco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pgsql-hackers" <[EM
Carlos Ojea Castro wrote:
Hello:
I have the same problem as Welly, when try to connect PostgreSQL it cause
an error "unable to load libsqlpg.so".
I am using postgresql 7.4.1 and Debian Sarge with kernels 2.4.27 and
2.6.8-1.
A few weeks ago I get the connection work using Debian Woody with
kernel
17 matches
Mail list logo
