good morning,
some days ago i have fallen over an issue which feels more or less like
a bug. consider:
test=# create role xy LOGIN;
CREATE ROLE
test=# grant connect on database test to xy;
GRANT
test=# drop role xy;
ERROR: role "xy" cannot be dropped because some objects depend on it
DETAI
Hi All,
Does the command ALTER INDEX take exclusive lock on the objects involved?
Specifically I am looking at ALTER INDEX ... SET TABLESPACE. The docs do not
mention anything about this. I assume it would, and can do a few tests (or
look at code :) ), but asking here wouldn't hurt!
Best regar
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Objections, better ideas?
> Alternatively we could do a pg_sleep(.1) to sleep for 100ms. It sounds like
> the ideal would be something like:
> insert 'now'
> pg_sleep(.1)
> begin
> insert 'now'
> select * from t
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would anyone object to \df displaying a function's volatility? Maybe
> limit it to \df+?
Huh? \df+ has displayed volatility for a long time, and I don't recall
any great demand to move it into \df.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Sushant Sinha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this mean we want a unified function ts_headline and we trigger the
> fragments if NumFragments is specified? It seems that introducing a new
> function which can take configuration OID, or name is complex as there
>
Magnus Hagander wrote:
>For the record, what we were talking about was snapshotting the time at
>backend start and then use QueryPerformanceCounter() to see what
>happened and do some calculation.
Although this might not be such a big issue for the regression tests:
Be aware that the reliability
Now I understand the code much better. A few more questions on headline
generation that I was not able to get from the code:
1. Why is hlparsetext used to parse the document rather than the
parsetext function? Since words to be included in the headline will be
marked afterwords, it seems more rea
Moving to -hackers...
On May 21, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:
Luke Lonergan wrote:
The problem is that the implied join predicate is not being
propagated. This is definitely a planner deficiency.
IIRC only equality conditions are propagated and gt, lt, between
aren't. I seem to
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:25 AM, daveg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 12:27:16AM -0300, Dickson S. Guedes wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> These patch implements the TODO item: Have psql show current values
>> for a sequence.
>> Comments are welcome.
>>
>> Sequence "public.fo
Am Mittwoch, 21. Mai 2008 schrieb Richard Huxton:
> Is there a tag in the CVS to mark this point, or better still a tarball
> that people like me can check out and play with over the next month or two?
There is not. But the density of commits is not so high, so you should be
able to target this
On May 23, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Would anyone object to \df displaying a function's volatility? Maybe
limit it to \df+?
Ideally we would have a short header for the column so that it
doesn't
take too much space, and specify the setting with a single
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 08:51:29PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Please find updated patch with bug fixes from Yoshiyuki Asaba and
Michael Meskes. Any mistakes in it are mine. :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 377
Hi,
From: Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 23:22:02 +0200
> But I have a little problem with the output.
> If it's not obvious, here is the query tweaked a little below.
...
> Can we get the rows in tree order, please?
13 matches
Mail list logo
