On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:36:41PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Noah Misch writes:
> > > One option that would simplify things is to fix only non-Windows in the
> > back
> > > branches, via socket protection, and fix Windows in HEAD only.
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
> > Here is a patch to a bit improve the reference page for the LOCK
> > command. I think it'd be better for the isolation level to be in
> > capitals and wrapped in the tags.
>
> It's done that way elsewhere in the sa
> "bill" == bill wilson writes:
bill> This a toy example from a 'upsert' script that appends new data:
bill> select a from (select 1 as a) as t1 where not exists (select
bill> true from (select 2 as a) t2 where a=a) ;
bill> a
bill> ───
bill> (0 rows)
bill> Please tell me this a bug.
This a toy example from a 'upsert' script that appends new data:
select a from (select 1 as a) as t1 where not exists (select true from
(select 2 as a) t2 where a=a) ;
a
───
(0 rows)
select a from (select 1 as a) as t1 where not exists (select true from
(select 2 as a) t2 where t1.a=t2.a) ;
Re: Andres Freund 2014-06-04 <20140604194544.gb...@awork2.anarazel.de>
> > I'm unconvinced that this'd add much to our regression testing capability,
> > though. The standard thing is to do an EXPLAIN to check the plan shape
> > and then run the query to see if it gets the right answer. Checking
On 09/20/2014 12:23 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 09/20/2014 12:38 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
>> I would not (nor do I feel that I did..) have committed it over a
>> specific request to not do so from another committer. I had been hoping
>> that there would be another review coming from somewhere,
On September 20, 2014 4:03:43 PM CEST, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
>
>On 09/20/2014 09:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> At the moment there's some rememnants of support for borland CC. I
>don't
>> believe it's likely that any of it still works. I can't remember ever
>> seing a buildfarm animal
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I have looked into refactoring related patch and would like
> to share my observations with you:
Thanks! Useful input is always welcome.
> 1.
> + * Run IDENTIFY_SYSTEM through a given connection and give back to caller
> This API also gets plu
On 09/20/2014 09:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
At the moment there's some rememnants of support for borland CC. I don't
believe it's likely that any of it still works. I can't remember ever
seing a buildfarm animal running it either - not surprising it's ~15
years since the last release.
Sinc
On 09/16/2014 01:51 PM, Tapan Halani wrote:
Hello everyone..i am new to PostgreSQL project. I had prior experience
with sql+ , with oracle 11g database server. Kindly help me grasp more
about the project.
The first thing you need to do is learn to ask your question in the
right forum.
Stephen,
> Yes- but that's pretty trivially done, given that you've stipulated that
> a single connection DB connection must be used from authentication until
> de-authentication. All that is needed is an additional column in the
> auth table which is populated with a pseudo-random value which is
Hello everyone..i am new to PostgreSQL project. I had prior experience with
sql+ , with oracle 11g database server. Kindly help me grasp more about the
project.
Thank you,
Tapan Halani
Hi,
At the moment there's some rememnants of support for borland CC. I don't
believe it's likely that any of it still works. I can't remember ever
seing a buildfarm animal running it either - not surprising it's ~15
years since the last release.
Since there's both msvc and mingw support for window
Heikki.I have idea. when i begining vacuum i must create structure like hash table. And the first action i fill this hash table.in code this look like:for( blkno = ..; all pages; blkno++) { if(! gistPageIsLeaf(blkno)) { for( all tuples in blkno ) { hash[ blkno that is referenced by the
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Fortunately it looks pretty trivial though. The patch attached fixes
> the above test cases.
> Obviously this needs to be fixed in 9.4 and HEAD.
Wouldn't it be better if bundled with some regression tests?
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hack
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> New patches taking into account all those comments are attached.
I have looked into refactoring related patch and would like
to share my observations with you:
1.
+ * Run IDENTIFY_SYSTEM through a given connection and give back to ca
On 20 September 2014 06:13, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> "Adam" == Brightwell, Adam
>> writes:
>
> Adam> At any rate, this appears to be a previously existing issue
> Adam> with WITH CHECK OPTION. Thoughts?
>
> It's definitely an existing issue; you can reproduce it more simply,
> no need
On 09/20/2014 12:38 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I would not (nor do I feel that I did..) have committed it over a
> specific request to not do so from another committer. I had been hoping
> that there would be another review coming from somewhere, but there is
> always a trade-off between waiting
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > Don't we need some way to prohibit changing GUC by launching process,
> > once it has shared the existing GUC?
>
> Nope. I mean, eventually, for true parallelism ... we absolutely will
19 matches
Mail list logo
