James William Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 12:16:16AM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>> Why are there two ways of representing some of the array types? I mean,
>> why is there an _int4 when you could just as well write int4[]? I'm
>> probably missing the point altogeth
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 12:16:16AM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Yes, the intarray stuff was very helpful but also somewhat confusing.
> Why are there two ways of representing some of the array types? I mean,
> why is there an _int4 when you could just as well write int4[]? I'm
> probably miss
Bruce Momjian writes:
> The error is coming from parse_expr.c::typecast_expression, and its call
> to typenameTypeId(). I wish I understood how we do domains better to
> fix this properly. Anyone?
The reason the cast isn't found is that find_coercion_pathway() strips
off the domains before it e
Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, of course. I see that now. I was unaware that a function had an
> associated "user data". What's the semantics associated with the
> fn_extra? Does it retain its setting throughout a session (i.e. the
> lifetime of the backend process)?
No, jus
I can confirm that this is a bug. The attached SQL shows that creating
a CAST _to_ a domain type doesn't work, though the cast can be created.
The attached SQL provided by Fabien shows the failure.
The error is coming from parse_expr.c::typecast_expression, and its call
to typenameTypeId(). I
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Looking at contrib/intarray/_int_op.c might help. It does something
like this:
ArrayType *a = (ArrayType *)
DatumGetPointer(PG_DETOAST_DATUM_COPY(PG_GETARG_DATUM(0)));
The file src/include/utils/array.h also seems to have many useful
functions.
Hope this
Tom Lane wrote:
Make a struct that can hold two ArrayMetaStates. Or whatever else you
need. What a C function keeps in fn_extra is its own affair.
Yes, of course. I see that now. I was unaware that a function had an
associated "user data". What's the semantics associated with the
fn_extra
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 02:47:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > > If you like I can split it into two patches, one patch splits the openssl
> > > stuff out of the main files and a second which adds
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 5/6/06, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > I've not seen any patch for this come past...
>
> Yes, I got a little busy. I ended up refactoring a good amount of the
> code because the entire thing is a little ugly. I'll go ahead and
> just fix the Coverity stuff first a
On 5/6/06, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
I've not seen any patch for this come past...
Yes, I got a little busy. I ended up refactoring a good amount of the
code because the entire thing is a little ugly. I'll go ahead and
just fix the Coverity stuff first and send the refactored patch later
Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The thing that makes me a bit confused is the
> ArrayMetaState. The functions obtain it using:
> my_extra = (ArrayMetaState *) fcinfo->flinfo->fn_extra;
> which is fine if there's only one array parameter. What happens if I
> have two?
Make a s
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 05:26:31PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> I find very little information about how to write functions that deals
> with arrays. My only source of information right now is the
> arrayutils.c. Other pointers to docs and code are greatly appreciated.
Looking at contrib/inta
David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 09:02:02PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Why can PLs not handle pseudo-types?
No one's done the work to figure out which ones are sensible to
support and then add the logic needed to support them.
PL/Java wil
Andy Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first item on the todo list is "remove behaviour
> of postmaster -o". Does that simply mean remove the
> option and the associated processing from
> postmaster.c?
No, it means something closer to this:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2
Andy Chambers wrote:
> The first item on the todo list is "remove behaviour
> of postmaster -o". Does that simply mean remove the
> option and the associated processing from
> postmaster.c?
>
> Is anyone working on this?
>
> I've attached a naive patch that does what I've
> described above. It
The first item on the todo list is "remove behaviour
of postmaster -o". Does that simply mean remove the
option and the associated processing from
postmaster.c?
Is anyone working on this?
I've attached a naive patch that does what I've
described above. It compiles and passes the test
script in
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:26:33PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Just to update everyone, I've refactored a good amount of the
> rebuild-control-values-from-WAL code and should have it ready for
> -patches tomorrow.
I've not seen any patch for this come past...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-05-05 kell 17:51, kirjutas Jim C. Nasby:
> On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 12:09:45AM +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > ??hel kenal p??eval, N, 2006-05-04 kell 17:23, kirjutas Jim Nasby:
> > > I often find myself wanting to know how many transactions per second
> > > a database i
18 matches
Mail list logo
