Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an

From:	Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>
To:	denis(at)edistar(dot)com
Cc:	pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:	Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an
Date:	2006-02-28 12:28:12
Message-ID:	87veuzoeg3.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org
Views:	Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:	2006-02-28 10:52:44 from denis(at)edistar(dot)com  2006-02-28 12:28:12 from Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>   2006-02-28 20:51:54 from Denis Gasparin <denis(at)edistar(dot)com>    2006-02-28 21:22:29 from Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>     2006-03-01 16:24:03 from denis(at)edistar(dot)com      2006-03-01 16:52:12 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>      2006-03-01 17:37:55 from Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>    2006-02-28 21:23:54 from Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Lists:	pgsql-general

In response to

• Size comparison between a Composite type and an equivalent Text field at 2006-02-28 10:52:44 from denis

Responses

• Re: Size comparison between a Composite type and an at 2006-02-28 20:51:54 from Denis Gasparin

Browse pgsql-general by date

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	pg	2006-02-28 13:01:44	implicit tables syntax disappeared from 8.0->8.1
Previous Message	Roman Neuhauser	2006-02-28 12:04:31	Re: majordomo unmaintained, postmaster emails ignored?