On Sunday 17 December 2000 15:07, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We need additions to alter_table.sgml for the new OWNER option mention
> in the features list.
Here it is.
--
Mark Hollomon
*** alter_table.sgml.orig Tue Dec 19 17:32:47 2000
--- alter_table.sgmlTue Dec 19 17:39:2
ctually try to do the update/insert. Maybe into the heap access routines as
suggested by Andreas.
--
Mark Hollomon
l set proserial to 0. 'ALTER FUNCTION' will increment it
each time. It would be up to the individual PL handlers to check to make sure
that their cache is not out of date.
Is there a better way to solve this problem?
--
Mark Hollomon
o do with set-uid.
I apporached the other way. LOAD MODULE would call a well defined
entry point which could then use SPI or some other facility to create
whatever. I saw it as a way to distribute types and even whole applications.
--
Mark Hollomon
ant to change the definition of
(say) int48eq, but if we are going to allow them to do so, we should be
careful to allow them to backup and restore such a change.
The template0 solution is at least better than what we have. And since I
have no other more brilliant suggestions, I would vote for it.
--
Mark Hollomon
e not in template0) are regularly dumped per database.
>
> I like that a lot. Solves the whole problem at a stroke, and even
> adds some extra functionality (alternate templates).
>
How does this solve the 'ALTER FUNCTION' problem?
--
Mark Hollomon
og space. Otherwise it's still not really practical.
I kind of like vadim's idea of segmenting pg_log.
Segments in which all the xacts have been commited could be deleted.
--
Mark Hollomon
ges to the
appropriate expected/*.out files.
Doc changes for 'DROP TABLE" and 'DROP VIEW' are included.
--
Mark Hollomon
On Tuesday 17 October 2000 16:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Hollomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In tcop/ulitity.c we have the following code fragment:
> > case VIEW:
> > {
> > char *viewName = stmt->name;
> > char *ruleName;
>
me.
if viewname == "myview"
then ruleName == "_RETmyview" (+/- multibyte aware truncation)
then relationName == "myview"
Is this code doing something that I'm missing?
Also
"DROP TABLE x, y, z" is allowed, but
"DROP VIEW x, y, z" is not.
Any reason other than historical?
--
Mark Hollomon
On Monday 16 October 2000 20:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Hollomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>> I say let them drop it with either one.
> >>
> >> I kinda like the 'drop index with drop index', 'drop table with drop
> >> ta
'drop table with drop
> table' and 'drop view with drop view' groupings ... at least you are
> pretty sure you haven't 'oopsed' in the process :)
>
>
So the vote is now tied. Any other opinions
--
Mark Hollomon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ecessary.
>
This seems to be fine. Much better than what was there.
The 'Notes on Usage' stuff probably ought also appear in the sgml docs
as well.
--
Mark Hollomon
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 09:42:41AM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
> add the functionality for "with check option" clause of create view
>
I'm not familiar with this. What does it do?
--
Mark Hollomon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
14 matches
Mail list logo
