Sorry, I missed a permission check on invocation of trusted procedures.
When client's label getting switched to Y from X, we needed to check
process:transition permission between label X and label Y.
It is same manner when OS launches a program with a special label to
cause domain transition.
The
Attached is an updated version of the patch to allow conversion of
int4/int8 directly to money. I added overflow checks, dropped
int2->cash, and updated the documentation.
- Joey
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml
index ecc79e2..13b888d 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml
Thanks for the review.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:47:18 -0400
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Shigeru HANADA
> wrote:
> > 1) Who can comment on a user mapping?
> > Basically only the owner can comment on a object, but user mappings
> > don't have owner. So following rules for A
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Committed with some additional hacking. In particular, I believe that
>> your version made SYNCHRONOUS_COMMIT_LOCAL equivalent to
>> SYNCHRONOUS_COMMIT_OFF, which was wrong; and your replacement of
>> synchronous_replication by synchronous_com
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:04:59PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > What'd be horribly useful would be the pid and the *time* that the lock
> > was taken.. ?Knowing just the pid blows, since the pid could technically
> > end up reused (tho not te
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Avoid assuming there will be only 3 states for synchronous_commit.
> Also avoid hardcoding the current default state by giving it the name
> "on" and replace with a meaningful name that reflects its behaviour.
> Coding only, no change in behavio
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Well, the flip side is that if you have appropriate logging turned on,
>> you might be able to go back and look at what the transaction that
>> took the lock actually did, which won't be possible
Aidan Van Dyk writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Oh, really? How can you possibly get by without it? Dependencies of
>> this type are all over the place.
> I think the general movement is toward *feature* dependancies. So for
> intstance, an extension can specify
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... In particular I'm really skeptical of the theory that we need
>> or should want version restrictions in Requires references. The
>> equivalent feature in RPM is deprecated for Fedora/RedHat packaging use,
>> and I see n
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Well, the flip side is that if you have appropriate logging turned on,
> you might be able to go back and look at what the transaction that
> took the lock actually did, which won't be possible if you arbitrarily
> throw the PID away.
What'd be horrib
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't. We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
>> interpretation of extension numbers, and I don't think that decision
>> needs to be reversed. David can choose to enforce something for stuff
>> distributed through PGXN if he wi
On Apr 4, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Once 9.1 is out, it'll probably be too late to dictate any semantics for
> version numbers, because somebody will have done something incompatible
> with it before 9.2 is released. If we are going to try to insist on
> this, now is the time.
Yes, exa
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler
>> wrote:
>>> * I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions.
>
>> I agree.
>
> I don't. We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
> in
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler
> wrote:
>> * I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions.
> I agree.
I don't. We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
interpretation of extension numbers, and I don't think that dec
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> But I'm assuming that at some point there's going to be something a bit more
> robust: specifically, requiring a minimum version, perhaps something like:
>
> requires = 'foo 1.0, bar 0.31.4'
Or maybe:
requires = 'foo = 1.0, bar >= 0.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> OK. Please comment the crap out of whatever you do, or maybe even add
>> a README. This stuff is just a bit arcane, and guideposts help a lot.
>
> We already have a README for that ;-). PFA, a patch to
> src/backend/utils
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 23:08, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 04/04/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>> My not yet complete attempt at doing a Windows build produces several of
>> these warnings during the build phase:
>>
>> Hash %ENV missing the % in argument 1 of each() at -e line 1.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I'm OK with this.
>>
>> The attached patch merges synchronous_replication into synchronous_commit.
>> With the patch, valid values of synchronous_commit are "on" (waits for local
>> flush and sync rep), "off" (waits for neither local flush nor
On 04/04/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
My not yet complete attempt at doing a Windows build produces several of
these warnings during the build phase:
Hash %ENV missing the % in argument 1 of each() at -e line 1.
I believe the attached patch is the fix for that.
I am not seei
On Apr 1, 2011, at 12:08 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
> Hi Selena,
>
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 11:42 PM, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Alexey Klyukin
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I did a little bit of work on this, and we discussed it here:
>>
>> http://archives.
Robert Haas writes:
> OK. Please comment the crap out of whatever you do, or maybe even add
> a README. This stuff is just a bit arcane, and guideposts help a lot.
We already have a README for that ;-). PFA, a patch to
src/backend/utils/misc/README describing the proposed revised API.
If nobo
Il 04/04/11 22:26, Robert Haas ha scritto:
I think you still need to update Solution.pm to match.
Here it is, including change of 3 'Id' attributes (I made them lowercase).
Thanks,
Gabriele
--
Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gabriele.bartol
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun abr 04 16:26:07 -0400 2011:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Gabriele Bartolini's message of lun abr 04 13:18:21 -0400
> > 2011:
> >> Il 04/04/11 18:37, Tom Lane ha scritto:
> >> > AFAIK, the main stumbling bloc
My not yet complete attempt at doing a Windows build produces several of
these warnings during the build phase:
Hash %ENV missing the % in argument 1 of each() at -e line 1.
I believe the attached patch is the fix for that.
diff --git i/src/tools/msvc/builddoc.bat w/src/tools/msvc/builddoc.b
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Gabriele Bartolini's message of lun abr 04 13:18:21 -0400 2011:
>> Il 04/04/11 18:37, Tom Lane ha scritto:
>> > AFAIK, the main stumbling block for that is that XML doesn't allow
>> > abbreviated close tags (ie,whatever). Which
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> What makes mor
Excerpts from Gabriele Bartolini's message of lun abr 04 13:18:21 -0400 2011:
> Il 04/04/11 18:37, Tom Lane ha scritto:
> > AFAIK, the main stumbling block for that is that XML doesn't allow
> > abbreviated close tags (ie,whatever). Which is something that
> > we are not likely to give up. So I'm
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Another variant would be to allow the check_hook to pass back a separate
>>> "void *" value that could be passed on to the assign_hook, containing
>>> any necessary derive
On 04.04.2011 21:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Indeed. One thing I'd like to know is whether docbook v5 is any more
portable/easier to install
Unfortunately, as far as I know - there isn't a huge difference.
regards,
Susanne
--
Susanne Ebrecht - 2ndQuadrant
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Train
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another variant would be to allow the check_hook to pass back a separate
>> "void *" value that could be passed on to the assign_hook, containing
>> any necessary derived data. This is logically a bit cleaner, and would
>>
On 4/4/11, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Christopher Browne
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Susanne Ebrecht
>> wrote:
>>> Anyway, I figured out there is another argument for XML:
>>>
>>> My information is that DocBook 5.0 won't support SGML anymore.
>>>
>>> Whi
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Given these rules, a check_hook and assign_hook could cooperate to store
>>> additional data in what guc.c thinks is just a pointer to a string
>>> value, ie, there can be
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> There are arguments as to why to switch to version 5, which is,
>> indeed, XML-only.
>> http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html#introduction-why-to-switch
> AFAICT, the biggest problem with our existing tool
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Susanne Ebrecht
> wrote:
>> Anyway, I figured out there is another argument for XML:
>>
>> My information is that DocBook 5.0 won't support SGML anymore.
>>
>> Which means - sooner or later a reaction is
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Given these rules, a check_hook and assign_hook could cooperate to store
>> additional data in what guc.c thinks is just a pointer to a string
>> value, ie, there can be more data after the terminating \0. The
>> assign_hoo
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> When I was investigating this report:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2011-03/msg00349.php
>
> besides providing a straightforward fix here:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2011-03/msg00352.php
>
> I noted that there was nearby code whi
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Dan Ports wrote:
>>> I see Robert committed that one already. If there's a consensus
>>> that omitting the pid for committed transactions is the right
>>> thing to do, I'm happy to put together a patch. I think that is
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> IMO the real problem is essentially that GUC assign hooks have two
>> functions, checking and canonicalization of the value-to-be-stored
>> versus executing secondary actions when an assignment is made; and
>> there's no way to get at j
Robert Haas wrote:
> Dan Ports wrote:
>> I see Robert committed that one already. If there's a consensus
>> that omitting the pid for committed transactions is the right
>> thing to do, I'm happy to put together a patch. I think that is a
>> better approach than trying to keep it after commit unt
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> Anyway, I figured out there is another argument for XML:
>
> My information is that DocBook 5.0 won't support SGML anymore.
>
> Which means - sooner or later a reaction is needed.
Yes, indeed.
I don't think that during the 9.1 alpha phase
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, this is pretty harmless,
>> so maybe we should just apply it and move on.
>
> I have no great objection to the patch as such; just wondering what the
> roadmap is.
Me, too.
On
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Dan Ports wrote:
> I see Robert committed that one already. If there's a consensus that
> omitting the pid for committed transactions is the right thing to do,
> I'm happy to put together a patch. I think that is a better approach
> than trying to keep it after comm
Robert Haas writes:
> Even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, this is pretty harmless,
> so maybe we should just apply it and move on.
I have no great objection to the patch as such; just wondering what the
roadmap is.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers m
I wrote:
> IMO the real problem is essentially that GUC assign hooks have two
> functions, checking and canonicalization of the value-to-be-stored
> versus executing secondary actions when an assignment is made; and
> there's no way to get at just the first one. So we cannot canonicalize
> the val
When I was investigating this report:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2011-03/msg00349.php
besides providing a straightforward fix here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2011-03/msg00352.php
I noted that there was nearby code which needed review, as it didn't
seem safe wh
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:33:22AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> There are patches for all known issues except one. Dan Ports was
> able to replicate the latest issue uncovered by YAMAMOTO Takashi
> using a particular DBT-2 configuration, found the issue, and posted
> a patch:
Well, it would be
> Betas are usually done using the regular release process, which is
> wrap-on-Thursday-release-on-Monday (to accommodate both packagers who
> work weekdays and those who can only spare time on weekends). So we'd
> really be talking about code freeze on the 14th if we want release on
> the 18th.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> My information is that DocBook 5.0 won't support SGML anymore.
>
> Which means - sooner or later a reaction is needed.
Ouch.
Even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, this is pretty harmless,
so maybe we should just apply it and move o
On 04.04.2011 18:37, Tom Lane wrote:
AFAIK, the main stumbling block for that is that XML doesn't allow
abbreviated close tags (ie,whatever). Which is something that
we are not likely to give up. So I'm not sure of the point of changing
something as trivial as entity declaration casing. You're
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Kohei Kaigai wrote:
> Sorry, I missed a permission check on invocation of trusted procedures.
>
> When client's label getting switched to Y from X, we needed to check
> process:transition permission between label X and label Y.
> It is same manner when OS launches
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Dan Ports wrote:
> While looking into a SSI bug, I noticed that we don't actually display
> the pid of the holding transaction, even though we have that
> information available.
>
> The attached patch fixes that.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www
Il 04/04/11 18:37, Tom Lane ha scritto:
AFAIK, the main stumbling block for that is that XML doesn't allow
abbreviated close tags (ie,whatever). Which is something that
we are not likely to give up. So I'm not sure of the point of changing
something as trivial as entity declaration casing. You
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> relatively small when q <= 5. Accordingly, I think we should expect indexes
> to be usable with at least with q = 5.
I defer to your opinion on this, since you know more about it than I
do. But I think it would still be worthwhile to w
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
>> > Project name
>> > Fast GiST index build
>>
>> Would/could/should this be implemented in a manner similar to the
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Shigeru HANADA
wrote:
> 1) Who can comment on a user mapping?
> Basically only the owner can comment on a object, but user mappings
> don't have owner. So following rules for ALTER/DROP seems good
> because they are similarly allowed to only owner. In addition to
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > Project name
> > Fast GiST index build
>
> Would/could/should this be implemented in a manner similar to the
> existing "GIN fast update" feature?
>
I've mentioned this problem i
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > I would like to propose a q-gram module which would have following
> > differences in comparison with pg_trgm:
> > 1) Focus on acceleration of edit distance (e.g. levenshtein dist
Gabriele Bartolini writes:
> My intention was to start and change some simple documentation files in
> order to make our conversion process from SGML to XML smoother, while
> keeping the SGML compatibility of the original documentation intact.
AFAIK, the main stumbling block for that is that X
Hi Robert (and Tom),
Il 04/04/11 16:57, Robert Haas ha scritto:
Forgive me for asking what may seem like a stupid question, but what's
not XML compliant about them now, and why do we care? The text is
only ever going to parse as SGML (not XML) so I guess I don't see why
it matters. I don't rea
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> At the risk of getting laughed at, how about, say, ~2 weeks from now?
>>
>> Seems reasonable to me.
>>
>>> Plus or minus a couple of days based on people's schedules a
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Julia Jacobson wrote:
> After having done extensive web search and not found anybody to solve the
> problem of interest on the general PostgreSQL mailing list, in the
> PostgreSQL newsgroup on usenet or on the PostgreSQL IRC channel, I would
> like to ask you how to
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> At the risk of getting laughed at, how about, say, ~2 weeks from now?
>
> Seems reasonable to me.
>
>> Plus or minus a couple of days based on people's schedules and which
>> day of the week we'd like the wrap to happen on
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>> Project name
>> Fast GiST index build
> Would/could/should this be implemented in a manner similar to the
> existing "GIN fast update" feature?
Fast build and fast update tend to be two different problems ...
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>> Should these items be on the open issues list?
>
> Yes, please.
Done.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.or
Robert Haas writes:
> At the risk of getting laughed at, how about, say, ~2 weeks from now?
Seems reasonable to me.
> Plus or minus a couple of days based on people's schedules and which
> day of the week we'd like the wrap to happen on.
Betas are usually done using the regular release proces
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Should these items be on the open issues list?
Yes, please.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
Robert Haas wrote:
> I have the impression from the SSI threads that there might be an
> issue or two there that needs to be dealt with, but there again I
> think that there are patches already posted, and that we just need
> to get around to dealing with them.
There are patches for all known
Gabriele Bartolini writes:
>I have made very small modifications to a few files in the
> documentation directory, which involve SGML entity declarations.
> Currently they are all written lowercase, the patch makes them
> uppercase. This won't affect SGML parsing, as SGML is case insensitive
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Project name
> Fast GiST index build
Would/could/should this be implemented in a manner similar to the
existing "GIN fast update" feature?
It's occurred to me to wonder whether even btree indexes would benefit
from this type of optimiza
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Apr 4, 2011, at 1:46 AM, Joseph Adams wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Thanks for the patch, but I think you forgot to worry about overflow:
>
>>> cash_in doesn't test for overflow, e
Robert Haas writes:
> On Apr 4, 2011, at 1:46 AM, Joseph Adams wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Thanks for the patch, but I think you forgot to worry about overflow:
>> cash_in doesn't test for overflow, either (tested on 8.4.0, 9.0.3, and HEAD):
>> Is this a bu
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Gabriele Bartolini
wrote:
> I have made very small modifications to a few files in the documentation
> directory, which involve SGML entity declarations. Currently they are all
> written lowercase, the patch makes them uppercase. This won't affect SGML
> parsing, a
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> I would like to propose a q-gram module which would have following
> differences in comparison with pg_trgm:
> 1) Focus on acceleration of edit distance (e.g. levenshtein distance)
> queries and LIKE/ILIKE queries
> 2) Support of various
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> the second sentence says "these features" - and I would understand:
>
> these features == man pages
>
> Means, I would understand that the two sentences belong together and
> both talk about man pages.
>
> When we don't mention man pages any
Folks,
I think it might be about time to start thinking concretely about when
we might like to kick beta1 out the door. The open issues list still
has 9 issues on it, but we now have patches awaiting review for most
of those issues (credit where credit is due: Fujii Masao, Noah Misch,
Joey Adams
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Merlin Moncure writes:
>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
working on exanding the cache to # xid > 1.
>>
>>> patch attached. this is essentially my original i
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It would probably take less than a day to flesh out this idea and
>> make it happen, but it does seem like a rather large change for
>> late alpha.
> what we're trying to avoid is committing new stuff that may require
> a
Here is text of my GSoC proposal. Given details probably makes essence of my
proposal clear. Any comments are welcome.
*Name of project*
Q-gram indexing module
*
*
*Synopsis*
Currently PostgreSQL has support for trigram-based string collection
indexing in pg_trgm module. Indexes in pg_trgm was o
Hello!
Here is the text of my proposal which I've recently applied to GSoC and have
mentioned before in
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTimqFRmFdrYaesnJB8H4BuJo3j1SBdR1qmv=k...@mail.gmail.com
Any comments are welcome.
*Project name*
Fast GiST index build
*Synopsis*
Currently GiS
On Mon, April 4, 2011 7:02 am, Robert Haas wrote:
> You have to feel sorry for the guy who deposits 9
> quintillion dollars and then gets a note from the bank saying his account
> is overdrawn...
>
Not really ...
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.o
On Apr 4, 2011, at 1:46 AM, Joseph Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Thanks for the patch, but I think you forgot to worry about overflow:
>>
>> rhaas=# select 9223372036854775807::money;
>> money
>>
>> -$1.00
>> (1 row)
>
> cash_in doesn't test fo
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 10:51:04 +0900
Shigeru Hanada wrote:
> 2011/4/2 Robert Haas :
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> Should we also have support for comments on user mappings?
> >
> > Oh, bugger. Yeah, probably.
>
> I'd work on this, if taking some days is OK.
I've work
Hi,
I have made very small modifications to a few files in the
documentation directory, which involve SGML entity declarations.
Currently they are all written lowercase, the patch makes them
uppercase. This won't affect SGML parsing, as SGML is case insensitive -
even though it is a good pr
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
What makes more sense to me after having thought about this more
ca
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 03.04.2011 19:38, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Dave Page writes:
>>>
>>> I can't help thinking I must be missing something obvious here, but is
>>> there any way to persist some data from PlanForeignScan to at least
>>> BeginForeignScan in a
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>> I can't help thinking I must be missing something obvious here, but is
>> there any way to persist some data from PlanForeignScan to at least
>> BeginForeignScan in an FDW? I'm aware of fdwplan->fdw_private, but at
>> that nee
On 04.04.2011 01:51, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
Is "man" really working on Windows?
Also the sentence says that the whole product isn't correct
installed just because docs aren't installed. Which also isn't
really true.
Honesty, I just would like
Hi,
On 02/04/11 20:47, emanov wrote:
Hi all!
What i need is transform xml document to table like that:
insert into tmp("Name", "Value")
select t.Name, t.Value from myxml.Nodes("/doc/person") as
t('Name:varchar|Value:int')
or similar. In fact I have many rows with many columns.
How I can do it w
88 matches
Mail list logo
