1. 15 Sep, 1999 3 commits
  2. 14 Sep, 1999 5 commits
  3. 13 Sep, 1999 4 commits
  4. 12 Sep, 1999 3 commits
    • Marc G. Fournier's avatar
      · b705fa39
      Marc G. Fournier authored
      Make sure both SRCH_INC and SRCH_LIB are checked for existances and added to
      the CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS variables...
      b705fa39
    • Marc G. Fournier's avatar
      · 2b7777bf
      Marc G. Fournier authored
      cygwin doesn't have an endian.h, but defines BYTE_ORDER in sys/param.h
      2b7777bf
    • Tom Lane's avatar
      Further improvements in cnfify: reduce amount of self-recursion · 2119cc06
      Tom Lane authored
      in or_normalize, remove detection of duplicate subexpressions (since it's
      highly unlikely to be worth the amount of time it takes), and introduce
      a dnfify() entry point so that unintelligible backwards logic in UNION
      processing can be eliminated.  This is just an intermediate step ---
      next thing is to look at not forcing the qual into CNF form when it would
      be better off in DNF form.
      2119cc06
  5. 11 Sep, 1999 4 commits
  6. 10 Sep, 1999 1 commit
  7. 09 Sep, 1999 5 commits
  8. 08 Sep, 1999 2 commits
  9. 07 Sep, 1999 5 commits
  10. 06 Sep, 1999 6 commits
  11. 05 Sep, 1999 2 commits
    • Tom Lane's avatar
      Per Tatsuo's recommendation, change mdopen so that it won't · b9d01fe2
      Tom Lane authored
      automatically create the file, except during bootstrap mode where that
      seems to be necessary.
      b9d01fe2
    • Tom Lane's avatar
      Disallow DROP TABLE/DROP INDEX inside a transaction block. · 0041202b
      Tom Lane authored
      We can't support these properly, since once the relation's physical files
      are unlinked, there's no way to roll back the transaction.  I suppose
      we could postpone the unlink till transaction commit, but then what of
      BEGIN; DROP TABLE foo; CREATE TABLE foo; ?
      The code does allow dropping a table/index created in the current
      transaction block, however, since the post-abort state would be that
      the table doesn't exist anyway.
      0041202b