On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Haribabu Kommi
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Michael Paquier
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Michael Paquier
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Attached is an u
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Attached is an updated patch.
>
> Forgot to update rules.out...
Thanks for the update. Patch looks good to me.
I marked it as ready for committer.
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Aust
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Attached is an updated patch.
Forgot to update rules.out...
--
Michael
From 4bc33d1497c302b8669b1f1d9d43f2f806029693 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Paquier
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:44:21 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Add system view and
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> Following are my observations on the latest patch.
Thanks for your review.
> + If no WAL receiver is present on the server queried,
> + a single tuple filled with NULL values is returned instead.
> +
>
> The above documentation change i
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Michael Paquier
w
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>>
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
The function, maybe. But emitting an all-nulls row from a vi
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>>> The function, maybe. But emitting an all-nulls row from a view seems
>>> counter-intuitive, at least when looking at it in c
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>> The function, maybe. But emitting an all-nulls row from a view seems
>> counter-intuitive, at least when looking at it in context of relational
>> database.
>
> OK, noted. Any other o
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> The function, maybe. But emitting an all-nulls row from a view seems
> counter-intuitive, at least when looking at it in context of relational
> database.
OK, noted. Any other opinions?
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (p
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Gurjeet Singh
> wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 2015 9:56 PM, "Michael Paquier"
> > wrote:
> >> If the node has no WAL receiver active, a tuple with NULL values is
> >> returned instead.
> >
> > IMO, in the absenc
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2015 9:56 PM, "Michael Paquier"
> wrote:
>> If the node has no WAL receiver active, a tuple with NULL values is
>> returned instead.
>
> IMO, in the absence of a WAL receiver the SRF (and the view) should not
> return any rows.
T
On Dec 13, 2015 9:56 PM, "Michael Paquier"
wrote:
>
> If the node has no WAL receiver active, a tuple with NULL values is
> returned instead.
IMO, in the absence of a WAL receiver the SRF (and the view) should not
return any rows.
13 matches
Mail list logo
