On 15/10/2023 07:18, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hi Alexander,
Hi Andrey,
Thank you for your work on this subject.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 1:42 PM Alexander Pyhalov
wrote:
The patch does not longer apply cleanly, so I rebased it. Attaching
rebased version.
Not surprising that the patch
Hi!
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 1:22 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> I see you're concentrating on the procedural version of this feature. But
> when you're calling a procedure within a normal SQL statement, the executor
> gets a snapshot and holds it until the procedure finishes. In the case the
Hi Alexander,
Hi Andrey,
Thank you for your work on this subject.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 1:42 PM Alexander Pyhalov
wrote:
> The patch does not longer apply cleanly, so I rebased it. Attaching
> rebased version.
Not surprising that the patch doesn't apply after 1.5 years since the
last
On 2023-10-14 22:40 +0200, David E. Wheeler write:
> Following up from a suggestion from Tom Lane[1] to improve the
> documentation of boolean predicate JSON path expressions, please find
> enclosed a draft patch to do so.
Thanks for putting this together. See my review at the end.
> It does
Hi, Alena!
Thank you for your work on the subject.
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 10:21 PM a.rybakina wrote:
> I fixed the kernel dump issue and all the regression tests were successful,
> but I discovered another problem when I added my own regression tests.
> Some queries that contain "or"
On Oct 14, 2023, at 16:40, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Following up from a suggestion from Tom Lane[1] to improve the documentation
> of boolean predicate JSON path expressions, please find enclosed a draft
> patch to do so.
And now I see I can’t spell “Deviations”. Will fix along with any
Hackers,
Following up from a suggestion from Tom Lane[1] to improve the documentation of
boolean predicate JSON path expressions, please find enclosed a draft patch to
do so. It does three things:
1. Converts all of the example path queries to use jsonb_path_query() and show
the results, to
On 9/28/23 19:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 04:23:42PM -0400, David Steele wrote:
So overall, +1 for Michael's patch, though I have only read through it and
not tested it yet.
Reviews, thoughts and opinions are welcome.
OK, I have now reviewed and tested the patch and
Sorry for the delay in response.
> Back then, we were pretty much OK with the amount of space that could
> be wasted even in this case. Actually, how much space are we talking
> about here when a failed truncation happens?
It is a transient waste in space as it will eventually clean up.
> As
Thanks for the reply, Erik. Have appreciated collaborating with you on a few
different things lately!
> On Oct 13, 2023, at 22:50, Erik Wienhold wrote:
>> Hi, finally getting back to this, still fiddling to figure out the
>> differences. From the thread you reference [1], is the point that @@
On 14.10.23 21:54, John Morris wrote:
Thank you for trying the patch out and commenting on it.
Thank you! I even didn't know such filters are possible, and after that
googling filter for C/C++ didn't gave good results.
I'm starting to think of it as a project. Here's a quick project
Thank you for trying the patch out and commenting on it.
I'm starting to think of it as a project. Here's a quick project statement.
The purpose is to generate improved Doxygen output while making maximal use of
how Postgres currently does program comments.
Thinking in terms of specific
Hackers,
I was recently discussing the complexities of dealing with pg_control
and backup_label with some hackers at PGConf NYC, when David Christensen
commented that backup_label was not a very good name since it gives the
impression of being informational and therefore something the user
Vik Fearing writes:
> On 10/13/23 06:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmph. The really basic problem here, I think, is that the spec
>> wants to claim that a domain is a data type, but then it backs
>> off and limits where the domain's constraints need to hold.
> I don't think that is an accurate
On 10/13/23 10:40, David Steele wrote:
On 10/12/23 19:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:41:39AM -0400, David Steele wrote:
After some more thought, I think we could massage the "pg_control in
backup_label" method into something that could be back patched, with
more
On 10/12/23 10:19, David Steele wrote:
On 10/11/23 18:10, Thomas Munro wrote:
As Stephen mentioned[1], we could perhaps also complain if both backup
label and control file exist, and then hint that the user should
remove the *control file* (not the backup label!). I had originally
suggested
> It would depend on how you pronounce SQL.
Got it, makes sense.
> We've standardised our docs
Makes sense. This "a vs. an" could be a nice thing to add to a
"conventions" or "doc standards" if it's not there already. I checked
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/notation.html and
On 10/13/23 06:37, Tom Lane wrote:
If it's not nominally of a domain type, please cite chapter and
verse that says it isn't.
Okay, I found it.
SQL:2023-2 6.7
Syntax Rules
5) Let C be the column that is referenced by CR. The declared type of CR is
Case:
a) If the column descriptor of
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:03 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 7/25/23 12:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > I have used the debugger to reproduce this as it needs quite some
> > coordination. I just wanted to see if the sequence can go backward and
> > didn't catch up completely before the
>I doubt we'd consider doing anything about that.
>The whole business of domains with NOT NULL constraints
>is arguably a defect of the SQL standard, because
>there are multiple ways to produce a value that
>is NULL and yet must be considered to be of the domain type.
In my opinion it is
20 matches
Mail list logo
