On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:28:28 +0200, I wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:53:22 -0500, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
>> <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
>>> On 2010-02-11 03:44 +0200, I wrote:
>>>> I'm going to have to disappoint a bunch of people and give up. :-(
>>> Btw. would it make sense to apply the WITH-on-top-of-DML part of this
>>> patch? At least to me, this seems useful because you can write a
>>> RECURSIVE SELECT and then use UPDATE .. FROM or DELETE .. USING on that
>> Hmm, that's a thought. Can you split out just that part?
> Here's the patch. It's the same as the stuff in writeable CTE patches,
> I added regression tests.
Whoops. The reference section in docs still had some traces of writeable
CTEs. Updated patch attached.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alexey Klyukin||Date: 2010-02-11 17:36:00|
|Subject: Re: a common place for pl/perlu modules|
|Previous:||From: Aidan Van Dyk||Date: 2010-02-11 17:31:54|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make standby servercontinuously retry restoring the next WAL|