On Mar 20, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 17:12, Tom Lane wrote:
"Thomas F. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What about the larger suggested change of breaking that section into
three more granular subsections? I could see commentary being
slightly more hel
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 15:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, the arguments Robert pointed to had to do with concurrent
> access to the table, and somehow I am not seeing the use-case for ALTER
> COLUMN TYPE on a table that's being actively used by other clients.
> It seems unlikely that you could d
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The user comment's recommended technique includes this line:
> ALTER TABLE tab DROP COLUMN temp_name;
> Would this cause a table rewrite? (Not a rhetorical question. I
> really don't know.)
No, it wouldn't. The UPDATE is the only part that modifies
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 1:00 pm, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Treat
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I believe Tom's comments in this email apply similarly here.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql- general/2006- 03/msg00891.php
The user comment's recommended technique includes t
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 12:58, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On this page:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/sql-altertable.html
>
> there is this user comment:
>
>
>
> To change the data type of a column, do this:
>
> BEGIN;
> ALTER TABLE tab ADD COLUMN new_col n
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On this page:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/sql-altertable.html
> ...
> I think the user comment should be removed, unless there is some
> benefit to using the multi-step process.
There isn't, and I agree it should go. The comment
On this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/sql-altertable.html
there is this user comment:
To change the data type of a column, do this:
BEGIN;
ALTER TABLE tab ADD COLUMN new_col new_data_type;
UPDATE tab SET new_col = CAST(old_col AS new_data_type);
ALTE
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 09:54:53AM -0600, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
> 23.3.3.1 - Inline (or In-place) Recovery
> 23.3.3.2 - Remote Recovery or Recovery into a New Cluster
> 23.3.3.3 - Continuous Recovery
>
> The "Inline Recovery" section would just be the existing 23.3.3
> repurposed.
>
> The
