On Jan14, 2014, at 02:10 , Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The fact that some
> day some new programmer might not be aware of all business rules,
> or might choose to try to ignore them is the reason you add
> constraints to columns and domains.
Well, for columns and domains that seems easy. We could hav
On Jan14, 2014, at 00:33 , Craig Ringer wrote:
> So I guess the question is: Is it worth all that hassle to remove a
> misfeature you have to go out of your way to use? Is support for non-1
> lower bounds stopping us from doing something useful and important? Or
> is it just an irritation that it
On 1/13/14, 7:10 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
>I think the argument really is that some people don't want to
>make their application code work with such cases (which is fine)
>so they'd like an inside-the-database guarantee that the app code
>won't ever see such cases. Which is l
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the argument really is that some people don't want to
> make their application code work with such cases (which is fine)
> so they'd like an inside-the-database guarantee that the app code
> won't ever see such cases. Which is less fine, ISTM: if you fear
> some part of
On 1/13/14, 5:33 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
So I guess the question is: Is it worth all that hassle to remove a
misfeature you have to go out of your way to use? Is support for non-1
lower bounds stopping us from doing something useful and important? Or
is it just an irritation that it exists?
It'
Craig Ringer writes:
> So I guess the question is: Is it worth all that hassle to remove a
> misfeature you have to go out of your way to use? Is support for non-1
> lower bounds stopping us from doing something useful and important? Or
> is it just an irritation that it exists?
I think the argum
On 01/14/2014 12:33 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 12:40 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> Implicit casts to text, anybody?
>> This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
>> 8.1 until last year and very nearly ca
On 01/14/2014 12:40 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Implicit casts to text, anybody?
>
> This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
> 8.1 until last year and very nearly caused postgres to be summarily
> extirpated (onl
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:45 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> This project has no deprecation policy,
>
> I believe it actually does, although it's not a formal, written
> policy. Would you like to help draft one up?
Lack of 'formal, wr
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:45 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> > Implicit casts to text, anybody?
>>
>> This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
>> 8.1 un
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Implicit casts to text, anybody?
>
> This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
> 8.1 until last year and very nearly caused postgres to be summaril
On 1/13/14, 10:40 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and very nearly caused postgres to be summarily
extirpated (only rescued a
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and very nearly caused postgres to be summarily
extirpated (only rescued at the last minute by my arrival). It cost
hund
On 01/10/2014 07:41 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:30:25PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a
>> huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of
>> any legitimate use cases for it, and hate the stu
On 1/10/14, 4:14 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
mistake. I've n
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>
>> On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> Jim Nasby writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
mistake. I've never seen anyone make
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Jim Nasby writes:
>>
>>> ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
>>> mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any
>>> legitimate use cases for it,
Gavin Flower wrote:
> Starting arrays at zero makes the most sense, as then you can
> calculate the displacement simply as (index) * (size of entry),
> and not have subtract one from the index first. This would be my
> preference.
The SQL standard explicitly specifies that arrays positions rang
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:26:04PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Jim Nasby writes:
> >>ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was
> >>a huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think
> >>of any legitimate use cases for it
On 01/10/2014 04:26 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a
huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of
any legitimate use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amo
On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any legitimate
use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of extra code needed to deal
with it.
Jim Nasby writes:
> ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
> mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any legitimate
> use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of extra code needed to deal
> with it.
You lack imagination, sir.
On 10/01/14 12:55, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM, David Fetter wrote:
We have dropped support, as you put it, for bigger and harder-hitting
mistakes than this. Anybody whose code has this kind of silliness in
it will be in other kinds of trouble, too.
While the decisio
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> We have dropped support, as you put it, for bigger and harder-hitting
> mistakes than this. Anybody whose code has this kind of silliness in
> it will be in other kinds of trouble, too.
While the decision to make it possible to set the lower
On 10/01/14 12:41, David Fetter wrote:
[..]
David (who is among that tiny minority who believe that arrays should
be indexed from 0.5 as a compromise ;)
Clearly we should use 1/e as the starting index, where 'e' is Euler's
constant 2.718... :-)
(Much more mathematically profound!)
Cheers,
G
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:30:25PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a
> huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of
> any legitimate use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of
> extra code needed to deal wit
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
> mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any
> legitimate use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of extra code
> needed to deal with it.
I
ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge
mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any legitimate
use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of extra code needed to deal
with it.
Obviously we can't just drop support, but what about an
28 matches
Mail list logo
