Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The thing is, if you drop a column that is used in a normal index, yes
> the index is now useless - drop it.
> However, since you can have (and I have) indexes like this:
> CREATE INDEX asdf ON table (a, b, c) WHERE d IS NOT NULL;
> If I drop c
Hey Tom,
With regards to our previous conversation about dropping columns now
properly dropping indexes that contain predicates that reference that
column, I now find it a bit disconcerting that such indexes are
automatically removed when the column is dropped, instead of requiring a
CASCADE.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The 14 december I submitted a patch that implements named function
> > arguments. So far no one have said anything about that.
>
> I have it on my to-look-at list, but I've been too busy trying to get
> 7.4.1 ready to do anything w
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> will do a general announce Monday afternoon, but if someone can test and
> confirm that I haven't missed anything, that would be great...
Looks solid from here ...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadc
will do a general announce Monday afternoon, but if someone can test and
confirm that I haven't missed anything, that would be great...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Would this be at all useful?
Someone mentioned that the 'fees' were relatively high though ... that you
lose a fair amount off the top *to* Sourceforge?
If we were going to do this, I would suggest just go
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >>
> >>Would this be at all useful?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Someone mentioned that the 'fees' were relatively high though ... that you
> >lose a fair amount off the top *to* Sourceforge?
> >
> >
> >
> If we were going to do this, I would suggest just going
Would this be at all useful?
Someone mentioned that the 'fees' were relatively high though ... that you
lose a fair amount off the top *to* Sourceforge?
If we were going to do this, I would suggest just going right through
paypal.
Marc G. Fournier
Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The 14 december I submitted a patch that implements named function
> arguments. So far no one have said anything about that.
I have it on my to-look-at list, but I've been too busy trying to get
7.4.1 ready to do anything with pending patches.
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have committed a fix into 7.5devel to do this properly. I think this
>> is the last case wherein btree is unnecessarily inefficient for large
>> numbers of equal keys.
> Any chance to have it on 7.4.1 ?
No. It's inadequately tes
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Uh, I don't remember seeing your patch, and I don't have it in my
> mailbox? Which email list did you send it to? Perhaps the email is
> stuck waiting for Marc to accept it.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-12/msg00176.php
--
/Denni
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> The 14 december I submitted a patch that implements named function
> arguments. So far no one have said anything about that. It would be nice
> if someone could look at it and either reject, accept, put on queue, or
> anything else.
>
> The patch is very big (400k), but m
Tom Lane wrote:
I have committed a fix into 7.5devel to do this properly. I think this
is the last case wherein btree is unnecessarily inefficient for large
numbers of equal keys.
Any chance to have it on 7.4.1 ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---(end of broadcast)---
The 14 december I submitted a patch that implements named function
arguments. So far no one have said anything about that. It would be nice
if someone could look at it and either reject, accept, put on queue, or
anything else.
The patch is very big (400k), but most of that size comes from trival
c
14 matches
Mail list logo
