From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
Date: | 2005-12-02 20:26:34 |
Message-ID: | 20051202202634.GH22966@surnet.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Actually, no. If I cut'n paste the number from psql to
> > cat > foo
> > <shift> <insert>
> > then only 4096 chars are copied. (Amusingly, I can't add a newline to
> > ^D and close the file. I must delete one char to do that.)
>
> Hmm, cut buffer limitation in X or someplace? I definitely get the
> right number of characters into the file written with \g, and what looks
> like a reasonable number of screensful of plain psql output. If Bruce
> is seeing the right number of dashes and the wrong number of data
> characters in his \g output then *something* is pretty weird there.
Well, I just tried the \g test and it is correct (12675 digits or so).
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Will Glynn | 2005-12-02 20:29:32 | Re: memory leak under heavy load? |
Previous Message | Harakiri | 2005-12-02 20:26:03 | Re: deadlock detected - when multiple threads try to update one table |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-12-02 20:27:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-12-02 20:25:58 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-12-02 20:27:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-02 20:15:29 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |