Hello
* I refreshed regress tests and appended tests for multi lines query
* There are enhanced checking of SELECT INTO statement
* I fixed showing details and hints
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2012/3/5 Alvaro Herrera :
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of lun mar 05 13:02:50 -0300 2012:
>> sm
2012-03-05 19:56 keltezéssel, Noah Misch írta:
>
> Having pondered the matter further, I now agree with Michael that the feature
> should stay disabled by default. See my response to him for rationale.
> Assuming that conclusion holds, we can recommended a higher value to users who
> enable the fe
Bruce Momjian writes:
> By doing a DROP CASCADE on plpython2, you drop the user functions, but
> not the support functions.
Well, yeah. The language depends on the support functions, not the
other way around.
> This certainly looks like a bug. Should I work on a patch?
It's not a bug, and it'
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 09:45:41PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 02:15:30PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 01:24:45PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > Running this script will delete the old cluster's data files:
> > > > /usr/local/pgdev/pg_upgra
Hello, I'm sorry for the abesnce.
> But it's broken in V3 protocol - getAnotherTuple() will be called
> only if the packet is fully read. If the packet contents do not
> agree with packet header, it's protocol error. Only valid EOF
> return in V3 getAnotherTuple() is when row processor asks
> fo
I have a report related to pg_upgrade where the user states that
dropping a PL language retains the PL support functions, and retains the
dependency on the PL library, which causes pg_upgrade to complain. The
exact case is that the user was using plpython2u in PG 9.0, but the PG
9.1 one-click inst
> 3. Pages with checksums set need to have a version marking to show
> that they are a later version of the page layout. That version number
> needs to be extensible to many later versions. Pages of multiple
> versions need to exist within the server to allow simple upgrades and
> migration.
This
> >
> > Keep in mind that it's not about coding in C but mostly about figuring
> > out what a sane design out to look like.
> >
>
While I can straddle the fence pretty my first reaction is that we are talking
about "application" functionality that falls outside what belongs in "core"
PostgreSQL
On ons, 2012-02-22 at 12:26 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> I started collecting up all the variants that do work as an
> initial shell script regression test, so that changes don't break
> something that already works. Here are all the variations that
> already work, setup so that a series of "1" ou
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> 2012/3/5 Alvaro Herrera :
>>
>> Excerpts from Artur Litwinowicz's message of lun mar 05 16:18:56 -0300 2012:
>>> Dear Developers,
>>> I am looking for elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a
>>> database or cluster -
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Artur Litwinowicz's message of lun mar 05 18:32:44 -0300 2012:
>
>> Ouch... "in next 2-4 years" - it broke my heart like a bullet - You
>> should not write it... ;)
>> I feel that I need to set aside SQL, Python, PHP and so on
W dniu 2012-03-05 23:09, Jaime Casanova pisze:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Artur Litwinowicz wrote:
>>
>> I understand it... (I meant if you wanna something... do it for your
>> self - it is the fastest way).
>
> other way is to fund the work so someone can use his/her time to do it
>
>> R
On 12.5.2011 08:54, Greg Smith wrote:
> Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> The idea is that buildfarm systems that are known to have a) reasonable
> hardware and b) no other concurrent work going on could also do
> performance tests. The main benefit of this approach is it avoids
> duplicating all of the sys
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Artur Litwinowicz wrote:
>
> I understand it... (I meant if you wanna something... do it for your
> self - it is the fastest way).
other way is to fund the work so someone can use his/her time to do it
> Regarding a functional area I can help... but I can not unde
W dniu 2012-03-05 22:44, Alvaro Herrera pisze:
>
> Excerpts from Artur Litwinowicz's message of lun mar 05 18:32:44 -0300 2012:
>
>> Ouch... "in next 2-4 years" - it broke my heart like a bullet - You
>> should not write it... ;)
>> I feel that I need to set aside SQL, Python, PHP and so on and t
Excerpts from Artur Litwinowicz's message of lun mar 05 18:32:44 -0300 2012:
> Ouch... "in next 2-4 years" - it broke my heart like a bullet - You
> should not write it... ;)
> I feel that I need to set aside SQL, Python, PHP and so on and take to
> my hands old book about C programming language
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is there any way to get more info out of CLUSTER VERBOSE so it says
what index it's working on AFTER the table re-write?
INFO: clustering "public.values" using sequential scan and sort
INFO: "values": found 0 removable, 260953511 nonremovable row
ve
On 5 March 2012 20:42, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the extensive testing. I'm adding your tests to the
> regression suite, and keep wondering if you saw that lots of them were
> already covered? Did you try make installcheck?
Yes, but I felt it better that I come up with my own
W dniu 2012-03-05 22:09, Pavel Stehule pisze:
> 2012/3/5 Artur Litwinowicz :
>> W dniu 2012-03-05 20:56, Alvaro Herrera pisze:
>>>
>>> Excerpts from Artur Litwinowicz's message of lun mar 05 16:18:56 -0300 2012:
Dear Developers,
I am looking for elegant and effective way for running jo
I wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that if we provide this function in core at all,
> it should take a parameter list long enough to let it fill in the Path
> completely. That would imply that any future changes in Path structs
> would result in a change in the parameter list, which would break
> ca
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Right. What I thought I was agreeing with was the notion that you
>> should need to specify more than the trigger name to drop the
>> trigger. Rather like how you can create a trigger AFTER INSERT OR
>> UPDATE
On Monday, March 05, 2012 09:42:00 PM Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> > Still no command triggers firing for CREATE TABLE AS:
> Yes, Andres made CTAS a utility command, he didn't add the code that
> make them fire command triggers. I would expect his patch to get in
> first, so I don't expect him to be a
2012/3/5 Artur Litwinowicz :
> W dniu 2012-03-05 20:56, Alvaro Herrera pisze:
>>
>> Excerpts from Artur Litwinowicz's message of lun mar 05 16:18:56 -0300 2012:
>>> Dear Developers,
>>> I am looking for elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a
>>> database or cluster - for now I can n
W dniu 2012-03-05 20:56, Alvaro Herrera pisze:
>
> Excerpts from Artur Litwinowicz's message of lun mar 05 16:18:56 -0300 2012:
>> Dear Developers,
>>I am looking for elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a
>> database or cluster - for now I can not find that solution.
>
> Yeah, i
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> In any event, I think a pg_class.relvalidxmin is the right starting point.
>> One might imagine a family of relvalidxmin, convalidxmin, indcheckxmin
>> (already exists), inhvalidxmin, and attvalidxmin. relvalidxmin is like the
>> AccessExclus
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:29:56AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > I've yet to see an MVCC anomaly that one can reproduce at REPEATABLE READ
>> > and
>> > not at READ COMMITTED. ?They tend t
Hi,
Thanks for the extensive testing. I'm adding your tests to the
regression suite, and keep wondering if you saw that lots of them were
already covered? Did you try make installcheck?
Thom Brown writes:
> Creating a command trigger using ANY COMMAND results in oid,
> schemaname, objectname (
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>> My other comments so far are
>>
>> * some permutations commented out - no comments as to why
>> Something of a fault with the isolation tester that it just shows
>> output, there's no way to record expected output in the spec
>
> The reason
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On the otherhand, I think requiring an "overall longest match" makes
> your implementation non-polynomial complexity.
Only if you don't know how to implement it -- a DFA-based implementation
doesn't have much trouble with this.
> [ equivalence of knapsack problem
Hello
2012/3/5 Alvaro Herrera :
>
> Excerpts from Artur Litwinowicz's message of lun mar 05 16:18:56 -0300 2012:
>> Dear Developers,
>> I am looking for elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a
>> database or cluster - for now I can not find that solution.
>
> Yeah, it'd be good to h
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, there's no point that I can see in having two checks. I just
> dislike the idea that we have to remember to add this check for every
> method of accessing the relation - doesn't seem terribly future-proof.
> It gets even worse if you st
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:28:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > I think the right way to imagine this is as though the regular
> > expression were being matched to the source text in left-to-right
> > fashion.
>
> No, it isn't. You are headed down the garden path that leads t
2012/3/5 Robert Haas :
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Uh! Now that I read this I realize that what you're supposed to give to
>> CHECK TRIGGER is the trigger name, not the function name! In that
>> light, using CHECK FUNCTION for this doesn't make a lot of sense.
>>
Excerpts from Artur Litwinowicz's message of lun mar 05 16:18:56 -0300 2012:
> Dear Developers,
>I am looking for elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a
> database or cluster - for now I can not find that solution.
Yeah, it'd be good to have something. Many people say it's not
n
Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of lun mar 05 16:34:10 -0300 2012:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> It does however, illustrate my next review comment which is that the
> comments and README items are sorely lacking here. It's quite hard to
> see how it works, let
2012/3/5 Artur Litwinowicz
> Dear Developers,
> I am looking for elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a
> database or cluster - for now I can not find that solution.
> OK if You say "use cron" or "pgAgent" I say I know that solutions, but
> the are not effective and elegant. Compil
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of lun mar 05 15:28:59 -0300 2012:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> > From a performance standpoint, we really need to think not only about
>> > the cases where the patch wi
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:29:56AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I've yet to see an MVCC anomaly that one can reproduce at REPEATABLE READ
> > and
> > not at READ COMMITTED. ?They tend to be narrow race conditions at READ
> > COMMITTED, yet ea
Dear Developers,
I am looking for elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a
database or cluster - for now I can not find that solution.
OK if You say "use cron" or "pgAgent" I say I know that solutions, but
the are not effective and elegant. Compilation of "pgAgent" is a pain
(especial
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 04:33:32PM +0100, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> 2012-03-02 17:41 keltez?ssel, Noah Misch ?rta:
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> > I suggest enabling the feature by default but drastically reducing the
> > default
> > readahead chunk s
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 05:16:06PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:41:05AM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I suggest enabling the feature by default but drastically reducing the
> > default
> > readahead chunk size from 256 to, say, 5. That still reduces the FETCH
> > roun
Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of lun mar 05 15:28:59 -0300 2012:
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > From a performance standpoint, we really need to think not only about
> > the cases where the patch wins, but also, and maybe more importantly,
> > the cases where
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>>> This
>>> seems like a horrid mess that's going to be unsustainable both from a
>>> complexity and a performance standpoint. The only reason multixacts
>>> were tolerable at all was
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Ants Aasma wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> ... After that I think maybe some testing of the
>>> remaining CommitFest patches might be in order (though personally I'd
>>> like t
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> I'd like to see a spec for exactly which fields of ErrorData the hook is
>>> allowed to change, and some rationale.
>> Good question. I'd somewhat be inclined to say that it should only be able
>> to change output_t
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> But it's nervous-making to be making
> decisions like that on the basis of rather small sets of queries.
I heartily agree.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers ma
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of lun mar 05 13:02:50 -0300 2012:
> small fix of CheckFunctionById function
>
> Regards
>
> p.s. Alvaro, please, send your patch and I'll merge it
Here it is, with your changes already merged. I also added back the
new reference doc files which were droppe
2012/3/5 Robert Haas :
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> I confess to some bafflement about why we need dedicated syntax for
>>> this, or even any kind of core support at all. What would be wrong
>>> with defining a function that takes regprocedure as
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> One annoying thing about that is that it will reduce the usefulness of
>> add_path_precheck, because that's called before we compute the rowcount
>> estimates (and indeed not having to make the rowcount estimates is one
>>
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> The latest version of this patch looks sound to me. We haven't
>>> insisted on having even a sample application for every hook before,
>>> let alone a regression test, so I don't think this patch needs one
>>> either.
>>
>> What we've gen
Shigeru Hanada writes:
> So, just renaming create_foreignscan_path to plural form seems missing
> the point.
I agree that that wouldn't be an improvement. What bothers me about the
patch's version of this function is that it just creates a content-free
Path node and leaves it to the caller to fi
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I confess to some bafflement about why we need dedicated syntax for
>> this, or even any kind of core support at all. What would be wrong
>> with defining a function that takes regprocedure as an argument and
>> does whate
On 03/05/2012 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I'm just looking at this patch, and I agree, it should be testable. I'm
wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a module or set of modules
for demonstrating and testing
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> It does not seem right that the logic for detecting the serialization
>>> error is in heap_beginscan_internal(). Surely this is just as much of
>>> a problem for an index-scan or index-on
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I agree behaviour is wrong, the only question is whether our users
> rely in some way on that behaviour. Given the long discussion on that
> point earlier I thought it best to add a GUC. Easy to remove, now or
> later.
AFAICT, all the discussi
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> It does not seem right that the logic for detecting the serialization
>> error is in heap_beginscan_internal(). Surely this is just as much of
>> a problem for an index-scan or index-only-scan.
>
> err, very good point. Doh.
>
>> We don't wan
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I think the right way to imagine this is as though the regular
>> expression were being matched to the source text in left-to-right
>> fashion.
>
> No, it isn't. You are headed down the garden path that leads to a
> Perl-s
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Does this patch have any user-visible effect? I thought it would make
> pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp() advance, but it does not seem to. I
> looked through the source a bit, and as best I can tell this only sets
> some internal state which is
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 21.02.2012 13:19, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> In some places, the spinlock "insertpos_lck" is taken while another
>> spinlock "info_lck" is being held. Is this OK? What if unfortunately
>> inner spinlock takes long to be taken?
> Hmm, that's only done at a checkpoint (an
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I'm just looking at this patch, and I agree, it should be testable. I'm
>> wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a module or set of modules
>> for demonstrating and testing bits of the API that we expose. sr
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Marti, please review this latest version which has new isolation tests added.
>>
>> This does both TRUNCATE and CREATE TABLE.
>
> I don't see any need for a GUC to control this behavior. T
Robert Haas writes:
> I confess to some bafflement about why we need dedicated syntax for
> this, or even any kind of core support at all. What would be wrong
> with defining a function that takes regprocedure as an argument and
> does whatever? Sure, it's nicer syntax, but we've repeatedly reje
On 21.02.2012 13:19, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
Attached is a new version, fixing that, and off-by-one bug you pointed out
in the slot wraparound handling. I also moved code around a bit, I think
this new division of labor between the XLogIns
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Marti, please review this latest version which has new isolation tests added.
>
> This does both TRUNCATE and CREATE TABLE.
I don't see any need for a GUC to control this behavior. The current
behavior is wrong, so if we're going to choose th
Robert Haas writes:
> I think the right way to imagine this is as though the regular
> expression were being matched to the source text in left-to-right
> fashion.
No, it isn't. You are headed down the garden path that leads to a
Perl-style definition-by-implementation, and in particular you are
2012/3/5 Robert Haas :
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Uh! Now that I read this I realize that what you're supposed to give to
>> CHECK TRIGGER is the trigger name, not the function name! In that
>> light, using CHECK FUNCTION for this doesn't make a lot of sense.
>>
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Uh! Now that I read this I realize that what you're supposed to give to
> CHECK TRIGGER is the trigger name, not the function name! In that
> light, using CHECK FUNCTION for this doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
> Okay, CHECK TRIGGER it is.
small fix of CheckFunctionById function
Regards
p.s. Alvaro, please, send your patch and I'll merge it
/*
* Connect to SPI manager
*/
if (SPI_connect() != SPI_OK_CONNECT)
elog(ERROR, "SPI_connect failed");
values[0] = ObjectIdGetDatum(funcOid);
values[1] = ObjectIdGetDatum(relid
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I'm just looking at this patch, and I agree, it should be testable. I'm
> wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a module or set of modules
> for demonstrating and testing bits of the API that we expose. src/test/api
> or something
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Hmm, I think I see how that can happen:
>
> 0. A heap page has its bit set in visibility map to begin with
>
> 1. A heap tuple is inserted/updated/deleted. This clears the VM bit.
> 2. time passes, and more WAL is generated
> 3. The page
To avoid any confusion as to where this proposed feature is now, I'd
like to summarise my understanding, make proposals and also request
clear feedback on them.
Checksums have a number of objections to them outstanding.
1. We don't need them because there will be something better in a
later relea
Gregg Jaskiewicz wrote:
> Also, on the subject of prepared transactions (2PC), the "select *
> from pg_prepared_xacts ;" query simply does not reveal anything,
> despite the fact that I know that there should be at least two of
> those open.
> Unless it only list saved transactions, not a transa
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, one other thing about the count histogram: seems like we are
> frequently generating uselessly large ones. For instance, do ANALYZE
> in the regression database and then run
>
> select tablename,attname,elem_count_histogram from pg_stats
>
Hello
2012/3/5 Alvaro Herrera :
>
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of dom mar 04 16:33:08 -0300 2012:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> 2012/3/4 Alvaro Herrera :
>
>> > CHECK FUNCTION
>> > -
>> > In function: 'f()'
>> > error:42P
On 03/05/2012 05:12 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Checksums patch isn't sucking much attention at all but admittedly
there are some people opposed to the patch that want to draw out the
conversa
(2012/03/05 21:05), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2012/03/05 21:00), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> create_index_path builds multiple index paths for a plain relation. How
>> about renaming the function to create_foreign_paths?
>
> I meant "create_foreignscan_paths". I'm sorry about that.
Perhaps you are con
(2012/03/05 21:00), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2012/03/05 18:21), Shigeru Hanada wrote:
>> (2012/02/21 20:25), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> Please find attached an updated version of the patch.
>>
>> This v2 patch can be applied on HEAD cleanly. Compile completed with
>> only one expected warning of scan
(2012/03/05 18:21), Shigeru Hanada wrote:
> (2012/02/21 20:25), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> Please find attached an updated version of the patch.
>
> This v2 patch can be applied on HEAD cleanly. Compile completed with
> only one expected warning of scan.c, and all regression tests for both
> core an
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Checksums patch isn't sucking much attention at all but admittedly
>> there are some people opposed to the patch that want to draw out the
>> conversation until the patch is rejected,
>
>
Tom, agreed - it looks like we dug the hole and got ourselves into it.
But I still want to understand why.
It looks like we have rather small table on the host where I see the
slowness. And all other tables have triggers that will update one row
in that small table. The small table contains single
On 5 March 2012 17:23, Robert Haas wrote:
> This is different from what Perl does, but I think Perl's behavior
> here is batty: given a+|a+b+ and the string aaabbb, it picks the first
> branch and matches only aaa.
Yeah, this is sometimes referred to as "ordered alternation",
basically that the b
(2012/02/21 20:25), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Please find attached an updated version of the patch.
This v2 patch can be applied on HEAD cleanly. Compile completed with
only one expected warning of scan.c, and all regression tests for both
core and contrib modules passed.
This patch allows FDWs to
On 20.02.2012 08:00, Amit Kapila wrote:
I was trying to understand this patch and had few doubts:
1. In PerformXLogInsert(), why there is need to check freespace when
already during ReserveXLogInsertLocation(), the space is reserved. Is
it possible that the record size is more than actually calc
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 05:34:50PM +0100, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> The program logic shouldn't change at all. He meant that extra coding effort
> is needed if you want manual caching. It requires 2 loops instead of 1 if you
> use
> FETCH N (N>1).
Ah, thanks for the explanation.
Michael
--
Mi
84 matches
Mail list logo
