Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Documentation added, patch attached and applied. Thanks.
>
> I just got around to reading this patch. Why is the syntax GRANT CONNECTION
> and not GRANT CONNECT? Privilege names are generally verbs not nouns.
> Unless someone can point to a good reas
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 15:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Documentation added, patch attached and applied. Thanks.
>
> I just got around to reading this patch. Why is the syntax GRANT CONNECTION
> and not GRANT CONNECT? Privilege names are generally verbs not nouns.
> Unle
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Documentation added, patch attached and applied. Thanks.
I just got around to reading this patch. Why is the syntax GRANT CONNECTION
and not GRANT CONNECT? Privilege names are generally verbs not nouns.
Unless someone can point to a good reason for CONNECTION, I'm going
On 4/29/06, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
>"Jaime Casanova" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>there is a chance to add a STEP clause to the FOR statement in plpgsql?
>>
>>
>
>This is not free: it'd require making STEP a reserved word (at least
>within plpgsql) which i
Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:43:03 +0300, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"Sven Suursoho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So, what about this in configure:
if --with-python && test_iterator_app_crashes
# errcode(FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), errmsg(patch your python)
disable_iterator_feature
fi
Testing it i
"Sven Suursoho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, what about this in configure:
> if --with-python && test_iterator_app_crashes
># errcode(FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), errmsg(patch your python)
>disable_iterator_feature
> fi
Testing it in configure is wrong, because there's no guarantee the sam
Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:48:48 +0300, Bruce Momjian :
Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:14:28 +0300, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Sven Suursoho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Unfortunately, there is still one problem when using unpatched
python,
>> caused by too aggressive assert.
>>
http://mail.python.
Sven Suursoho wrote:
> Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:14:28 +0300, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > "Sven Suursoho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Unfortunately, there is still one problem when using unpatched python,
> >> caused by too aggressive assert.
> >> See
> >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/p
Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:14:28 +0300, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"Sven Suursoho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Unfortunately, there is still one problem when using unpatched python,
caused by too aggressive assert.
See
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2005-August/046571.html.
I gues
"Sven Suursoho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, there is still one problem when using unpatched python,
> caused by too aggressive assert.
> See
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2005-August/046571.html.
> I guess there should be warning somewhere as Hannu said b
Hi,
Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:17:36 +0300, Bruce Momjian :
Sorry, I have to revert this patch because it is causing crashes in the
plpython regression tests. Would you please run those tests, fix the
bug, and resubmit. Thanks.
Found and fixed two problems:
1) named parameters handling if there w
> >>> This was not ready to be applied, was it?
>
> > I don't recall any specific objections that weren't answered.
>
> How about the fact that it's already caused one buildfarm failure?
>
> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=wasp&dt=2006
-04-30%2003:05:01
Well, that objection c
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> This was not ready to be applied, was it?
> I don't recall any specific objections that weren't answered.
How about the fact that it's already caused one buildfarm failure?
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=wasp&dt=2006-04-30%2003
13 matches
Mail list logo
