Robert Treat wrote:
> I think it is worth restating in stronger language, the potential overhead of
> raising notices or warning in such a large number of queries will be an
> upgrading show stopper for some people. (To the extent that for some, the
> release where this is a mandatory warning w
On Friday 17 June 2005 08:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> > > And for an app issuing
> > > hundreds or thousands of queries per minute (or even second) a
> > > warning could
> > > effectively be a showstopper. It could requi
Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> > And for an app issuing
> > hundreds or thousands of queries per minute (or even second) a
> > warning could
> > effectively be a showstopper. It could require disabling all
> > warnings in their
> > config to
On Jun 17, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
And for an app issuing
hundreds or thousands of queries per minute (or even second) a
warning could
effectively be a showstopper. It could require disabling all
warnings in their
config to avoid filling their disk with Postgres logs in minute
Note that issuing warnings due to normal DML SQL queries is much more severe
than the typical DDL warnings. Many people have queries strewn throughout the
application so updating them may be a *lot* of work. And for an app issuing
hundreds or thousands of queries per minute (or even second) a warn
On Jun 17, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
OK, the current patch warns about two things, \' with one message,
and
any backslash in a non-E string with a different message.
Those are two very different things. \' is easy to get around and
there's no very good re
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > OK, the current patch warns about two things, \' with one message, and
> > any backslash in a non-E string with a different message.
>
> Those are two very different things. \' is easy to get around and
> there's no very good reason not to send '' inst
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, the current patch warns about two things, \' with one message, and
> any backslash in a non-E string with a different message.
Those are two very different things. \' is easy to get around and
there's no very good reason not to send '' instead. But avoiding all
use o
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian said:
>
> > OK, the current patch warns about two things, \' with one message, and
> > any backslash in a non-E string with a different message. The \'
> > message can easily be avoided in clients even in 8.0 by using '', but
> > for E'', there is no way to p
Bruce Momjian said:
> OK, the current patch warns about two things, \' with one message, and
> any backslash in a non-E string with a different message. The \'
> message can easily be avoided in clients even in 8.0 by using '', but
> for E'', there is no way to prepare an application before upgra
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > All true. Conversely, there does need to be a path for us to get to
> > standard behaviour.
>
> Yes --- but the important word there is "path". I think we have to do
> this in stages over a number of releases, to give people time t
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All true. Conversely, there does need to be a path for us to get to
> standard behaviour.
Yes --- but the important word there is "path". I think we have to do
this in stages over a number of releases, to give people time to
migrate.
Assuming that th
[switched to -hackers]
Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It probably won't be any worse than when '' was rejected for an integer
0.
That analogy is *SO* far off the mark that I have to object.
Fooling with quoting rules will not simply cause clean failures, whi
13 matches
Mail list logo
