On tis, 2010-10-26 at 11:53 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Case #2 is the strange one, I think. It's not actually just an
> adaptation of #1. #1 requires that all elements of the array have a
> corresponding PK value; but #2 just requires that one of them does.
> Peter, can you clarify case #2? Did you have a use case in mind?
[ That's the period references timestamp case. ]
You're right, it's probably not useful.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-10-26 19:18:53|
|Subject: Re: Extensible executor nodes for preparation of SQL/MED |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-10-26 19:02:27|
|Subject: Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock|