On 03/24/2014 08:40 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
A few 'the the' typos in code & docs.
Thanks, fixed.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
A few 'the the' typos in code & docs.--- src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c.orig 2014-03-23 22:43:44.864504319 +0100
+++ src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c 2014-03-23 22:44:02.735634100 +0100
@@ -1089,7 +1089,7 @@
* has progressed. There is a small fixed number of insertion locks,
* determined
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:24 PM, MauMau wrote:
> From: "Amit Kapila"
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:12 PM, MauMau wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing and testing the patch. Yes, at first I did what you
>>> mentioned, but modified the patch according to some advice in the mail
>>> thread. During
Hi,
I tried using integer array within a structure array in ECPG code. But it
resulted in some garbage values being printed from the table. Here are the
details,
The ECPG program is attached (array_test.pgc). It tries to read the
contents of table emp, whose structure and contents are as follows
p
On Thursday, 20 March 2014 2:45 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Wang, Jing wrote:
>> On Friday, 14 March 2014 2:42 PM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>>> I think it might be okay to even change this API to return the
>>> FreeSpace, as the other place it is used is for Index Vac
I wrote:
> Well ... [2.3] passes in C locale, anyway. 9.1 appears to have a problem if
> using UTF8 encoding:
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prairiedog&dt=2014-03-19%2017%3A00%3A48
Some bisection tests say that it started failing after commit
17dee323e7ff67863582f279e415
(2014/03/20 21:59), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Here is a simple example for the case where the
> use_remote_estimate option is true:
Sorry, I incorrectly wrote it. The following example is for the case
where the option is *false*, as you see.
> # On mydatabase
>
> mydatabase=# CREATE TABLE mytable
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 07:04:20PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:52:22PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:44:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I'm inclined to suggest that we should put the socket under $CWD by
> > > default, but provide some way for t
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:52:22PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:44:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'm inclined to suggest that we should put the socket under $CWD by
> > default, but provide some way for the user to override that choice.
> > If they want to put it in /tmp,
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Keeping jsonb_ops as the default seems better / safer to me.
That's what I did.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/ma
2014-03-23 15:53 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek :
>
>
> On 23/03/14 15:14, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> Review shadow_v6 patch
>>
>>
>> I have only one objection - What I remember - more usual is using a list
>> instead a bitmap for these purposes - typical is DefElem struct. Isn't
>> it better?
>>
>>
> To m
On 21.3.2014 08:23, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> It does sound like the main question here is which opclass should
>>> be the default. From the discussion there's a jsonb_hash_ops
>>> whi
On Mar 23, 2014, at 8:03, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>
> Just a quick comment on this. Yes, pgAdmin always added a BOM in every
> SQL files it wrote.
From
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2223882/whats-different-between-utf-8-and-utf-8-without-bom:
According to the Unicode standard, the BOM fo
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Is this the patch you had in mind? I kept the pg_catalog filter. Do we
> want to always show the replica identity line for \d+?
Doesn't seem like a great idea to remove the filter tests for replident
values and then not fix the display code to cope with those values.
I
On Sat, 2014-03-22 at 11:23 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 3/21/14, 8:13 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >> Surely if it were really a major annoyance, someone would have sent code
> >> to fix it during the last 4 years and more since the abo
On 23/03/14 15:14, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Review shadow_v6 patch
I have only one objection - What I remember - more usual is using a list
instead a bitmap for these purposes - typical is DefElem struct. Isn't
it better?
To me it seemed that for similar use cases (list of boolean options) the
2014-03-23 15:14 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
> Review shadow_v6 patch
>
> Hello
>
> I did a recheck a newest version of this patch:
>
> 1. There is a wide agreement on implemented feature - nothing changed from
> previous review - it is not necessary comment it again.
>
> 2. v6 patch: patching clean
Review shadow_v6 patch
Hello
I did a recheck a newest version of this patch:
1. There is a wide agreement on implemented feature - nothing changed from
previous review - it is not necessary comment it again.
2. v6 patch: patching cleanly, compilation without errors and warnings, all
regress tes
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:32:45PM +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> It's easy to add support of other operations to hash_ops, so it will
> be on par with default GIN opclass, at the price of bigger size. We
> can add it later to contrib/jsonbext.
>
> I'm mostly worrying about changing semantics of s
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Anyone has any objection for this behaviour difference between
> usage of ::regclass and to_regclass()?
No, I think that makes a lot of sense given the behavior -- if the
object is not there, to_regclass() just returns NULL. It doesn't
require
It's easy to add support of other operations to hash_ops, so it will
be on par with default GIN opclass, at the price of bigger size. We
can add it later to contrib/jsonbext.
I'm mostly worrying about changing semantics of scalar.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sa
21 matches
Mail list logo
