2010/9/24 Tom Lane :
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> -1. There's nothing wrong with the function-as-a-computed-column
>>> feature, and it seems likely that taking it away will break applications.
>
>> ... What evidence do we have that anyone is rely
Pavel Stehule writes:
> I dislike this feature too. It is breaking other ANSI SQL feature -
> constructors, because it has same syntax tablename(field1, field2,
> ).
Uh, that's nonsense. What we're talking about is tablename.functionname.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So? There are lots of surprising things in SQL. And *of course* the
>> only complaints come from people who didn't know about it, not from
>> satisfied users.
> I guess that's true, but is this behavior specified in or
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> -1. There's nothing wrong with the function-as-a-computed-column
>>> feature, and it seems likely that taking it away will break applications.
>
>> ... What evidence
2010/9/24 André Fernandes :
>
>
>> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:01:35 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Name column
>> From: robertmh...@gmail.com
>> To: heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com
>> CC: arhi...@dc.baikal.ru; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>>
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> -1. There's nothing wrong with the function-as-a-computed-column
>> feature, and it seems likely that taking it away will break applications.
> ... What evidence do we have that anyone is relying on this
> behavior in ap
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?iso-8859-1?B?QW5kcukgRmVybmFuZGVz?=
> writes:
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> wrote:
>>> I'm starting to wonder if we should think about deprecating this
>>> behavior. It is awfully confusing and unintuitive.
>
>
=?iso-8859-1?B?QW5kcukgRmVybmFuZGVz?=
writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>> I'm starting to wonder if we should think about deprecating this
>> behavior. It is awfully confusing and unintuitive.
> I agree, it is very unintuitive.
> +1 for deprecating thi
> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:01:35 -0400
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Name column
> From: robertmh...@gmail.com
> To: heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com
> CC: arhi...@dc.baikal.ru; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> w
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> For historical reasons PostgreSQL supports calling a function with a single
> argument like "column.function", in addition to "function(column)". There is
> a function "name(text)" that casts the input to the 'name' datatype, so your
> e
On 24/09/10 13:02, Vlad Arkhipov wrote:
I have just come across a weird thing. It works for any table and seems
to be not documented.
SELECT c.name FROM (VALUES(1, 'A', true)) c;
SELECT c.name FROM pg_class c;
And it does not work in these cases:
SELECT name FROM (VALUES(1, 'A', true));
SELECT
I have just come across a weird thing. It works for any table and seems
to be not documented.
SELECT c.name FROM (VALUES(1, 'A', true)) c;
SELECT c.name FROM pg_class c;
And it does not work in these cases:
SELECT name FROM (VALUES(1, 'A', true));
SELECT name FROM pg_class;
PostgreSQL 8.4.2 o
12 matches
Mail list logo
