On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 04:51:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Would someone make the doc change outlined above? Thanks.
>
> Sorry, I'd nearly forgotten about this issue. Will see about fixing the
> docs. (It looks like some of the comments in execMain.c could use work
>
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Would someone make the doc change outlined above? Thanks.
Sorry, I'd nearly forgotten about this issue. Will see about fixing the
docs. (It looks like some of the comments in execMain.c could use work
too.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql
: Tom Lane
> Cc: Robert Haas; Hitoshi Harada; pgsql-b...@postgresql.org;
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:29:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >
@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:29:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
&g
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:29:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Given the lack of complaints since 9.0, maybe we should not fix this
> >>> but just redefine the ne
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it would be a good idea for UPDATE and DELETE to expose
>> a LIMIT option, but I can't really see the virtue in making that
>> functionality available only through SPI.
>
> FWIW, I'm not excited about that. You can get well-defined beha
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Given the lack of complaints since 9.0, maybe we should not fix this
>>> but just redefine the new behavior as being correct? But it seems
>>> mighty inconsistent t
2012/4/15 Boszormenyi Zoltan :
> 2012-04-14 18:15 keltezéssel, Peter Eisentraut írta:
>
>> On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule
>>> wrote:
>
> It has a lot of sense. Without it, it's very difficult to do logical
>
2012-04-14 18:15 keltezéssel, Peter Eisentraut írta:
On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
It has a lot of sense. Without it, it's very difficult to do logical
replication on a table with no primary key.
(Whether or not pe
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule
>> wrote:
>> >> It has a lot of sense. Without it, it's very difficult to do logical
>> >> replication on a table with no primary k
2012/4/14 Peter Eisentraut :
> On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule
>> wrote:
>> >> It has a lot of sense. Without it, it's very difficult to do logical
>> >> replication on a table with no primary key.
>> >>
>> >> (Whether or no
On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> >> It has a lot of sense. Without it, it's very difficult to do logical
> >> replication on a table with no primary key.
> >>
> >> (Whether or not people should create such tables in
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> It has a lot of sense. Without it, it's very difficult to do logical
>> replication on a table with no primary key.
>>
>> (Whether or not people should create such tables in the first place
>> is, of course, beside the point.)
>
> I am not
2012/4/14 Robert Haas :
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>>> Yeah. I think it would be a good idea for UPDATE and DELETE to expose
>>> a LIMIT option, but I can't really see the virtue in making that
>>> functionality available only through SPI.
>>
>> I don't agree - LI
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Yeah. I think it would be a good idea for UPDATE and DELETE to expose
>> a LIMIT option, but I can't really see the virtue in making that
>> functionality available only through SPI.
>
> I don't agree - LIMIT after UPDATE or DELETE has no
>
> Yeah. I think it would be a good idea for UPDATE and DELETE to expose
> a LIMIT option, but I can't really see the virtue in making that
> functionality available only through SPI.
>
I don't agree - LIMIT after UPDATE or DELETE has no sense. Clean
solution should be based on using updateable
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/spi-spi-execute.html
>>
>>> ===
>>> SPI_execute("INSERT INTO foo SELECT * FROM bar", false, 5);
>>> will allow at m
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/spi-spi-execute.html
>
>> ===
>> SPI_execute("INSERT INTO foo SELECT * FROM bar", false, 5);
>> will allow at most 5 rows to be inserted into the table.
>> ===
>
>> This seem
umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/spi-spi-execute.html
> ===
> SPI_execute("INSERT INTO foo SELECT * FROM bar", false, 5);
> will allow at most 5 rows to be inserted into the table.
> ===
> This seems not true unless I'm missing something.
Hmm ... that did
19 matches
Mail list logo
