etmorelli wrote:
> Tom,
>
> sorry, but the address that you wrote tells that there isn?t any patch to
> apply. Is this patch Itagaki's one? How could I pick it?
>
> By the way, don?t worry about the whole idea. It's an experiment that shall
> be improved in the future, I hope.
>
> Best rega
Tom,
sorry, but the address that you wrote tells that there isn´t any patch to
apply. Is this patch Itagaki's one? How could I pick it?
By the way, don´t worry about the whole idea. It's an experiment that shall
be improved in the future, I hope.
Best regards,
Eduardo Morelli
Patch withdrawn by author for reworking.
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > CREATE INDEX foo ON bar (x) WITH (fillfactor = 70, option = blah);
> >
> > Yeah, something along this line
"Eduardo Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sorry, but the address that you wrote tells that there isn´t any patch to
> apply. Is this patch Itagaki's one? How could I pick it?
Yeah, should be in the pgpatches archives [ digs... ] here you go:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>Um, are you aware that a patch for that was already submitted?
>http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
>
>I find the whole idea pretty ugly myself.
Tom,
sorry, but the address that you wrote tells that there isn´t any patch to
apply. Is this patch Ita
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > CREATE INDEX foo ON bar (x) WITH (fillfactor = 70, option = blah);
>
> Yeah, something along this line is what I'd like to see; probably the
> first form since that creates the least hazard of foreclosing other
> additions to the syntax later.
> Anyway the
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:16:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What's bugging me about it is that the proposed syntax wedges a bunch
>> of index-access-method-specific parameters into what ought to be an
>> access-method-agnostic syntax; and furthermore does it by ad
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:16:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> What's bugging me about it is that the proposed syntax wedges a bunch
> of index-access-method-specific parameters into what ought to be an
> access-method-agnostic syntax; and furthermore does it by adding more
> grammar keywords, somethi
"Jaime Casanova" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 3/3/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I find the whole idea pretty ugly myself.
> why? if i can ask? you didn't seem upset with that in the thread
What's bugging me about it is that the proposed syntax wedges a bunch
of index-access-metho
On 3/3/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I'm trying to extend the CREATE INDEX statement with a fillfactor
> > clause.
>
> Um, are you aware that a patch for that was already submitted?
> http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
>
> I find the whole idea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm trying to extend the CREATE INDEX statement with a fillfactor
> clause.
Um, are you aware that a patch for that was already submitted?
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I find the whole idea pretty ugly myself.
regards, tom la
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 07:14:45PM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to extend the CREATE INDEX statement with a fillfactor clause. In
> Gram.y, I did this:
> I had to add a new field into IndexStmt (unsigned int fillfactor). Everything
> is fine after parsing except that I c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to extend the CREATE INDEX statement with a fillfactor clause. In
Gram.y, I did this:
IndexStmt: CREATE index_opt_unique INDEX index_name ON qualified_name
access_method_clause '(' index_params ')' fillfactor_clause where_clause
Hi,
I'm trying to extend the CREATE INDEX statement with a fillfactor clause. In
Gram.y, I did this:
IndexStmt: CREATE index_opt_unique INDEX index_name ON qualified_name
access_method_clause '(' index_params ')' fillfactor_clause where_clause
{
14 matches
Mail list logo
