Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > The problem is that we don't archive the partially written xlog file,
> > and in this case that xlog file contains the information needed to make
> > the tar file consistent.
>
> > Is this a known problem? Do we document this? If so, I can't find it.
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given the limitations of table inheritance, it doesn't surprise me that
> nobody really uses it to implement object-oriented programs.
True.
> Is it really an important area to improve, or are there other priorities?
There are certainly higher priorit
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 03:39:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Digging in the CVS history, it appears that I may have broken it here:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/parser/parse_coerce.c.diff?r1=2.35;r2=2.36;f=h
> It's quite possible that it failed even before that how
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, true. Perhaps then just hacking the hash node so that hash join
> pulls on it twice (the first time for a single tuple, the second time
> for the rest) is the way to go. Since the hash node is essentially an
> implementation detail of hash join, I d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (elein) writes:
> Are you saying that the code was supposed "unflatten" the
> arguments of a function into a possible composite type taking into
> consideration the possible inheritance information of the
> composite type?
No, it didn't do that. AFAICT the case it was supposed t
Are you saying that the code was supposed "unflatten" the
arguments of a function into a possible composite type taking into
consideration the possible inheritance information of the
composite type?
elein
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08:04:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In parse_func.c there are routin
Bruce Momjian writes:
> The problem is that we don't archive the partially written xlog file,
> and in this case that xlog file contains the information needed to make
> the tar file consistent.
> Is this a known problem? Do we document this? If so, I can't find it.
Yes, and yes. You did not
