Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> When was char() fixed size?
>
> > char() was fixed size only in that you could cache the column offsets
> > for char() becuase it was always the same width on disk before TOAST.
>
> But that was already broken
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> When was char() fixed size?
> char() was fixed size only in that you could cache the column offsets
> for char() becuase it was always the same width on disk before TOAST.
But that was already broken by MULTIBYTE.
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Alessio Bragadini wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > >
> > > > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > > > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> > > > so
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Alessio Bragadini wrote:
> > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> > > something which is strictly astheti
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 11:04:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alessio Bragadini wrote:
> > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
>
Alessio Bragadini wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
>
> > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> > something which is strictly asthetic.
> >
> > Regardless, I do have c
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> something which is strictly asthetic.
>
> Regardless, I do have collegues/clients who ask when such a fe
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 12:43:37 +0300,
Antti Haapala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> > something which is strictly asthetic.
>
> What about copy? AFAI
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera kirjutas L, 12.10.2002 kell 04:16:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:08:18PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >
> > > And it really is a minor matter of convenience. I end up dropping and
> > > recreating all my tables a lot in the early stages of development, which
On 12 Oct 2002 at 2:54, Jeff Davis wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the order the attributes are returned makes no
> difference in a client application, unless you're referencing attributes by
> number. All applications that I've made or seen all use the name instead, and
> I've never heard other
On 12 Oct 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera kirjutas L, 12.10.2002 kell 04:16:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:08:18PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >
> > > And it really is a minor matter of convenience. I end up dropping and
> > > recreating all my tables a lot in the early stages of dev
> >
> > Did attlognum's (for changing column order) get implemented for 7.2 ?
>
> I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> something which is strictly asthetic.
>
> Regardless, I do have collegues/cl
> I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> something which is strictly asthetic.
What about copy? AFAIK, copy doesn't allow column names being specified,
so it's not purely aesthetic...
-
Alvaro Herrera kirjutas L, 12.10.2002 kell 04:16:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:08:18PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> > And it really is a minor matter of convenience. I end up dropping and
> > recreating all my tables a lot in the early stages of development, which is
> > mildly annoying. Certain
Oh yes, I agree. ALTER TABLE ... DROP COLUMN helps out a lot. I actually don't
use that for much yet because 7.3 is still in beta. However, I certainly
can't complain to the developers for it since it's already developed :)
I am consistantly amazed by every minor version release. If postgres ha
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:08:18PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> And it really is a minor matter of convenience. I end up dropping and
> recreating all my tables a lot in the early stages of development, which is
> mildly annoying. Certainly not as bad, I suppose, as if you're led to believe
> tha
>
> I still remember a post from somebody on the phpbuilder site that had
> changed a field from varchar to date and all the dates he had got changed
> to -00-00.
>
> He most unimpressed, especially since he (being typical of a lot of MySQL
> users) didn't have a backup.
>
Ah, yes. Classic.
I
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Jeff Davis wrote:
I agree with your message except for that statement. MySQL alter table
provides the ability to change column types and cast the records
automatically. I remember that feature as really the only thing from MySQL
that I've ever missed.
> They also state that they have more sophisticated ALTER TABLE...
>
> Only usable feature in their ALTER TABLE that doesn't (yet) exist in
> PostgreSQL was changing column order (ok, the order by in table creation
> could be nice), and that's still almost purely cosmetic. Anyway, I could
> have us
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > They also state that they have more sophisticated ALTER TABLE...
> >
> > Only usable feature in their ALTER TABLE that doesn't (yet) exist in
> > PostgreSQL was changing column order (ok, the order by in table creation
> > could be nice), and that's still
Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 09:20, Antti Haapala wrote:
> >
> > Check out:
> >
> > http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
> >
> > MySQL AB compares MySQL with PostgreSQL.
>
> I wouldn't look too far into these at all. I've tried to get
> ' " as identifier q
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 08:20, Antti Haapala wrote:
> Quoted from one page
> > Because we couldn't get vacuum() to work reliable with PostgreSQL 7.1.1,
I have little respect for the MySQL advocacy guys. They purposely
spread misinformation. They always compare their leading edge alpha
software ag
On 11 Oct 2002 at 16:20, Antti Haapala wrote:
> Check out:
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
Well, I guess there are many threads on this. You can dig around archives..
> > Upgrading MySQL Server is painless. When you are upgrading MySQL Server,
> > you don't need to
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 09:20, Antti Haapala wrote:
>
> Check out:
>
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
>
> MySQL AB compares MySQL with PostgreSQL.
I wouldn't look too far into these at all. I've tried to get
' " as identifier quote (ANSI SQL) ' corrected on the cras
Check out:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
MySQL AB compares MySQL with PostgreSQL.
Quoted from one page
> Because we couldn't get vacuum() to work reliable with PostgreSQL 7.1.1,
> we haven't been able to generate a --fast version of the benchmarks yet
> (where we
25 matches
Mail list logo
