On mån, 2012-04-23 at 02:25 +0200, Jan Urbański wrote:
It turned out not to be as straightforward as I though :(
Yeah, been there ...
The I/O code in PL/Python is a bit of a mess and that's something that
I'd like to address somewhere in the 9.3 development cycle. Right now
making the
On 10/04/12 21:47, Jan Urbański wrote:
On 10/04/12 21:27, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?=wulc...@wulczer.org writes:
Yes, that would be ideal, even though not backwards-compatible.
Back-patching is out of the question, but do we want to change trigger
functions to receive
On 10/04/12 07:35, Jan Urbański wrote:
On 10/04/12 04:20, Tom Lane wrote:
Don't know if anybody noticed bug #6559
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-03/msg00180.php
I've confirmed that the given test case works in 9.0 but fails in
9.1 and HEAD.
So, I know what's going on, I still
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= wulc...@wulczer.org writes:
On 10/04/12 04:20, Tom Lane wrote:
Don't know if anybody noticed bug #6559
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-03/msg00180.php
So, I know what's going on, I still don't know what's the best way to
handle it.
The
I wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= wulc...@wulczer.org writes:
Now that I understand what's been going on, I'll try to think of a
non-invasive way of fixing that...
ISTM that conversion of a composite value to Python ought to produce a
dict, now that the other direction expects a
On 10/04/12 20:47, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?=wulc...@wulczer.org writes:
Now that I understand what's been going on, I'll try to think of a
non-invasive way of fixing that...
ISTM that conversion of a composite value to Python ought to produce a
dict, now
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= wulc...@wulczer.org writes:
On 10/04/12 20:47, Tom Lane wrote:
On reflection, can't we fix this as follows: if the value coming in from
Python is a string, just feed it to record_in, the same as we used to.
When I traced through the logic before, it seemed like
On 10/04/12 21:27, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?=wulc...@wulczer.org writes:
Yes, that would be ideal, even though not backwards-compatible.
Back-patching is out of the question, but do we want to change trigger
functions to receive dictionaries in NEW?
Hm, I was not
Don't know if anybody noticed bug #6559
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-03/msg00180.php
I've confirmed that the given test case works in 9.0 but fails in
9.1 and HEAD. It's not terribly sensitive to the details of the
SQL: any non-null value for the composite column fails, for
On 10/04/12 04:20, Tom Lane wrote:
Don't know if anybody noticed bug #6559
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-03/msg00180.php
I've confirmed that the given test case works in 9.0 but fails in
9.1 and HEAD.
I find this code pretty unreadable, though, and know nothing to
speak of
10 matches
Mail list logo
