--On Mittwoch, Mai 07, 2008 20:38:59 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where are we on this feature?
Any update, Bernd?
I've merged the patch into current -HEAD and updated some parts. My current
*working* state can be reviewed at
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 13:48 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On Mittwoch, Mai 07, 2008 20:38:59 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where are we on this feature?
Any update, Bernd?
I've merged the patch into current -HEAD and updated some parts. My current
*working* state can be
Am Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2008 schrieb Simon Riggs:
CREATE RULE somename AS ON INSERT TO x WHERE where-clause DO INSERT ...
which seems straightforward, no?
Double evaluation is the key word. The conclusion was more or less that you
can't implement check constraints using the rules system. You
--On Donnerstag, Mai 08, 2008 13:28:14 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 13:48 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On Mittwoch, Mai 07, 2008 20:38:59 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where are we on this feature?
Any update, Bernd?
I've merged the patch
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 14:56 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2008 schrieb Simon Riggs:
CREATE RULE somename AS ON INSERT TO x WHERE where-clause DO INSERT ...
which seems straightforward, no?
Double evaluation is the key word. The conclusion was more or less that
--On Donnerstag, Mai 08, 2008 14:42:50 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That makes sense. I can't see how we would make LOCAL CHECK CONSTRAINTs
work with rules anyhow.
One of the idea's that came up through the discussion was to make the
rewriter responsible for collecting check
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 17:20 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On Donnerstag, Mai 08, 2008 14:42:50 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That makes sense. I can't see how we would make LOCAL CHECK CONSTRAINTs
work with rules anyhow.
One of the idea's that came up through the discussion
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Attached patch adds some error checking to the thread locking stuff in
libpq. Previously, if thread locking failed for some reason, we would
just fall through and do things without locking. This patch makes us
abort() instead. It's not the greatest thing probably, but
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Attached patch adds some error checking to the thread locking stuff in
libpq. Previously, if thread locking failed for some reason, we would
just fall through and do things without locking. This patch makes us
abort() instead. It's not the
Applied.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Surely psql computes the width of all cells before printing anything.
It does, but if you have a value
Applied.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have developed the attached patch which fixes 0 ^ 123.3.
Did you
--On Donnerstag, Mai 08, 2008 16:34:39 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you planning to work on this?
Yes, i do. But i have to finish other things first until i can get back
full attention to it, hopefully very soon.
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 21:37 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On Donnerstag, Mai 08, 2008 16:34:39 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you planning to work on this?
Yes, i do. But i have to finish other things first until i can get back
full attention to it, hopefully very
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Applied.
As I mentioned it before, is there any chance for this fix to be
backported to 8.3 branch? IMHO it's a usability regression.
Thanks.
--
Guillaume
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list
Guillaume Smet wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Applied.
As I mentioned it before, is there any chance for this fix to be
backported to 8.3 branch? IMHO it's a usability regression.
No, we don't change behaviors in back branches unless we get
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, we don't change behaviors in back branches unless we get lots of
complaints, and we haven't in this case.
I suspect it's annoying for a lot of people, just not annoying enough
to make them complain about it.
I
Guillaume Smet wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, we don't change behaviors in back branches unless we get lots of
complaints, and we haven't in this case.
I suspect it's annoying for a lot of people, just not annoying enough
to make them
17 matches
Mail list logo
