Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 09:54:23AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> We'd also have to come to this magic actual agreement on which such
>> fields we *want* :) Which alone would be an improvement.
> Well, there has been some discussion about this matter on the lists
> no
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 09:54:23AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:36 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>> Another thing that would be nice is to warn about commits that don't
>> include a "Description:" line. I have been trying to be religious
>> about that, but I seem to periodical
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:36 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 7:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Ah, that makes sense. Although Mark's idea of including a library
> > of possible hooks somewhere under src/tools/ seems even better.
>
> +1. And directions for setting them up (or, as I th
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:37:00AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:36 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>> Another thing that would be nice is to warn about commits that don't
>> include a "Description:" line. I have been trying to be religious
>> about that, but I seem to periodically
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:36 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Another thing that would be nice is to warn about commits that don't
> include a "Description:" line. I have been trying to be religious
> about that, but I seem to periodically apostatize.
And of course I meant "Discussion". :-(
--
Robert H
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 7:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Ah, that makes sense. Although Mark's idea of including a library
> of possible hooks somewhere under src/tools/ seems even better.
+1. And directions for setting them up (or, as I think he was
proposing, a script, but directions might be better)
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:16 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think you are right that individual committers could set up such hooks
>> in their own private repos. But that's not what was being suggested,
>> or so I thought.
> I was really thinking of a client side hook. The rea
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:16 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Fetter writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 06:41:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'd be okay with a hook that there was a way to override ("yes,
> >> I know what I'm doing, this doesn't require a catversion change").
> >> But there's no w
Mark Dilger writes:
> On Jan 19, 2020, at 12:20 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 12:46:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think you are right that individual committers could set up such hooks
>>> in their own private repos. But that's not what was being suggested,
>>> or so I t
> On Jan 19, 2020, at 12:20 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 12:46:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Fetter writes:
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 06:41:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'd be okay with a hook that there was a way to override ("yes,
I know what I'm doi
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 12:46:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 06:41:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'd be okay with a hook that there was a way to override ("yes,
> >> I know what I'm doing, this doesn't require a catversion change").
> >> But there
David Fetter writes:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 06:41:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd be okay with a hook that there was a way to override ("yes,
>> I know what I'm doing, this doesn't require a catversion change").
>> But there's no way to do that is there?
> I'm pretty sure there is. The prog
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 06:41:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> >> On Jan 17, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Shoulda been a catversion bump in here, if only for protocol's sake.
>
> > I'd love to have a git pre-commit hook that would warn about this, it
> > seems t
Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On Jan 17, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Shoulda been a catversion bump in here, if only for protocol's sake.
> I'd love to have a git pre-commit hook that would warn about this, it
> seems to happen several times a year, and I know I've transgressed
> more tha
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:50 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 17, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Dunstan writes:
> >> Add a non-strict version of jsonb_set
> >
> > Shoulda been a catversion bump in here, if only for protocol's sake.
> >
> > (A useful rule of thum
> On Jan 17, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Add a non-strict version of jsonb_set
>
> Shoulda been a catversion bump in here, if only for protocol's sake.
>
> (A useful rule of thumb is "if you won't pass the regression tests
> without doing an initdb, t
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Add a non-strict version of jsonb_set
Shoulda been a catversion bump in here, if only for protocol's sake.
(A useful rule of thumb is "if you won't pass the regression tests
without doing an initdb, there should be a catversion change".)
regards,
Add a non-strict version of jsonb_set
jsonb_set_lax() is the same as jsonb_set, except that it takes and extra
argument that specifies what to do if the value argument is NULL. The
default is 'use_json_null'. Other possibilities are 'raise_exception',
'return_target' and 'delete_key', all these be
18 matches
Mail list logo
