Robert Haas writes:
> a separate ALTER OPERATOR < COMMUTATOR > statement (or something of
> the sort) that pg_dump can emit as a separate item. Even a NOTICE in
I like that capability, but it's not helping us in the backward
compatibility section where we will still read commutator declarations
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was thinking a NOTICE at most. If it's a WARNING then restoring
>> perfectly valid pg_dump files will result in lots of scary-looking
>> chatter. You could make an argument for printing nothing at all,
>> but that woul
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Brendan Jurd writes:
>> On 20 December 2012 11:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> While reconsidering the various not-too-satisfactory fixes we thought of
>>> back then, I had a sudden thought. Instead of having a COMMUTATOR or
>>> NEGATOR forward refere
Brendan Jurd writes:
> On 20 December 2012 11:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While reconsidering the various not-too-satisfactory fixes we thought of
>> back then, I had a sudden thought. Instead of having a COMMUTATOR or
>> NEGATOR forward reference create a "shell" operator and link to it,
>> why not
On 20 December 2012 11:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> While reconsidering the various not-too-satisfactory fixes we thought of
> back then, I had a sudden thought. Instead of having a COMMUTATOR or
> NEGATOR forward reference create a "shell" operator and link to it,
> why not simply *ignore* such refer
Bug #7758 seems to be a rediscovery of the behavior that Itagaki-san
complained of a couple years ago:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-09/msg02035.php
While reconsidering the various not-too-satisfactory fixes we thought of
back then, I had a sudden thought. Instead of having a
Itagaki Takahiro writes:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure that fixing this case is worth the amount of work it'd
>> take. How often do you drop just one member of a commutator pair?
> I found the issue when an user tries to write a "safe" installer
> script un
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure that fixing this case is worth the amount of work it'd
> take. How often do you drop just one member of a commutator pair?
I found the issue when an user tries to write a "safe" installer
script under "DROP before CREATE" coding ru
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Itagaki Takahiro's message of mié sep 29 03:56:33 -0400 2010:
>> When we drop an operator used by other operators as COMMUTATOR or NEGATOR,
>> pg_dump generates an invalid SQL command for the operators depending on
>> the dropped one. Is it an unavoidable re
Excerpts from Itagaki Takahiro's message of mié sep 29 03:56:33 -0400 2010:
> When we drop an operator used by other operators as COMMUTATOR or NEGATOR,
> pg_dump generates an invalid SQL command for the operators depending on
> the dropped one. Is it an unavoidable restriction?
Maybe we need a pg
When we drop an operator used by other operators as COMMUTATOR or NEGATOR,
pg_dump generates an invalid SQL command for the operators depending on
the dropped one. Is it an unavoidable restriction?
CREATE OPERATOR <<< (
PROCEDURE = text_lt, LEFTARG = text, RIGHTARG = text, COMMUTATOR = >>>
11 matches
Mail list logo
