Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 6:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> >>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> >>> Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for the clarification.

Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > > Hi, > > Am Dienstag, den 07.02.2017, 15:58 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Katz: > > >> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=update_releases/current/20170209updaterelease.txt;h=f90d4716f240dbea

Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> Thanks for the clarification. I have updated the recipe along with Emre’s >> comments here: >> >> [updated text not included in the email] > > I still don't

Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> Below is the draft of the press release for the update this Thursday: >> >> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=update_releases/curr

Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Emre Hasegeli wrote: > >> As there are a lot of updates I did my best to consolidate some of the >> bullet points and as usual, people are directed to the release notes. >> Please let me know if there are any inaccuracies so I can fix them ASAP. > > Just some mino

[HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update

Hi! Below is the draft of the press release for the update this Thursday: https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=update_releases/current/20170209updaterelease.md;h=0cccb8986c08527f65f13d704a78c36bb8de7fef;hb=afc01091dea8a1597e8e21430edc3908c581ce0c

Re: [HACKERS] IS NOT DISTINCT FROM + Indexing

On Jul 22, 2014, at 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: >> On Jul 21, 2014, at 9:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The short reason why not is that it's not an operator (where "operator" >>> is defined as "s

Re: [HACKERS] IS NOT DISTINCT FROM + Indexing

On Jul 21, 2014, at 9:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: >> I'm curious if there is a reason why "IS NOT DISTINCT FROM" is not an >> indexable operation in a B-tree index, > > The short reason why not is that it's not an op

[HACKERS] IS NOT DISTINCT FROM + Indexing

Hi, I'm curious if there is a reason why "IS NOT DISTINCT FROM" is not an indexable operation in a B-tree index, as it is effectively testing for equality albeit with some "magic" for NULLs? Here is an example of what I mean, running tests on 9.3.4: -- create a table of integers

Re: [HACKERS] nested hstore patch

On Dec 23, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:16 PM, David E. Wheeler > wrote: >> * New operators: >> + `hstore -> int`: Get string value at array index (starting at 0) >> + `hstore ^> text`:Get numeric value for key >> + `hstore ^> int`: Get numeric

Re: [HACKERS] RETURNING syntax for COPY

On May 8, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas writes: >> On 08.05.2013 19:44, Tom Lane wrote: >>> No there isn't; what you suggest would require FE/BE protocol >>> extensions, making it several orders of magnitude more work than the >>> other thing. > >> I'd imagine that the f