"Andrew Gierth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The materialization logic for holdable cursors isn't detoasting data prior
> to storage in the portal's tuplestore, which leads to problems like this:
Hmm ... I think we'd seen this reported once before in the context of
dropping the cursor's source ta
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a new patch which does not create a bloom filter unless it sees
> that the hash join is going to batch. I'll send it along later
> tonight.
So ... where's the updated patch?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hacke
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 28 November 2008 16:59:19 Tom Lane wrote:
>> My feeling is that it ought to fire such triggers on *each* target.
> This would amount to statement level triggers firing multiple times per
> statement wouldn't it?
No, because they'd be different
On Friday 28 November 2008 16:59:19 Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Looks like inheritance causes a statement-level trigger to fire on
> > the last evaluated table in the inheritance chain. Is this the
> > desired behavior?
>
> Hm, I think whoever wrote the s
> Perhaps the best method would actually be to match only "*." at the
> beginning of the CN for now, and see if people complain? I would much
> like someone who knows more about what would be reasonable to speak up
> here, but it seems we don't have anybody here who knows...
I would encourage you
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> >>> What I am saying is for the default compile, SQL-level ACLs should be
> >>> possible because, since the ACL field has optional storage, there is no
> >>> downside to have it be available by default.
> >> I think it is a possib
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Friday 28 November 2008 17:13:54 Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Matching *only* as the first character will make it impossible to make
>> certificates for "www*.domain.com", which is AFAIK fairly popular - and
>> one of the examples you'll find on CA sites. But it would be f
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> * This seems to be still mostly NetBSD code, so I think you need to do
>>> more than just credit them in an aside. Should we repeat the full
>>> NetBSD copyright notice for this one function?
>
>> Do you mean the
