[BUGS] JDBC driver changes for 1.4.0 JDK (pg 7.2.1)

2002-05-23 Thread Mark J Hewitt
Not strictly a bug, but I have added the stub methods to the JDBC driver to permit compilation with the 1.4.0 JDK. Note this is not an implementation of the new functionality, it merely returns false or throws NotImplemented exceptions, but at least it all compiles. I did this when 1.4.0 was in b

[BUGS] in(NULL)

2002-05-23 Thread jose
Hi all, I think I found a bug using the IN operator. I have a table t populated as follow: a | b ---+ 1 | 11 2 | 22 3 | 33 4 | NULL (4 rows) select * from t where b in (11,22,NULL); a | b ---+ 1 | 11 2 | 22 (2 rows) select * from t where b not in (11,22,NULL); a | b ---+

[BUGS] Problem with Create Database

2002-05-23 Thread krishna
    Dear Sir,     When I start "postmaster -D /cygdrive/d/apps/cygwin/usr/local/pgsql/data" I am getting the follwoing message.   DEBUG:  database system was shut down at 2002-05-23 17:45:00DEBUG:  checkpoint record is at 0/11F970DEBUG:  redo record is at 0/11F970; undo rec

[BUGS] Problem with Create Database

2002-05-23 Thread krishna
    Dear Sir,     When I start "postmaster -D /cygdrive/d/apps/cygwin/usr/local/pgsql/data" I am getting the follwoing message.   DEBUG:  database system was shut down at 2002-05-23 17:45:00DEBUG:  checkpoint record is at 0/11F970DEBUG:  redo record is at 0/11F970; undo record is at 0/0; sh

[BUGS] Numeric Datatype

2002-05-23 Thread Terence Ingram
POSTGRESQL BUG REPORT TEMPLATE Your name : Terence Ingram Your email address : [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [BUGS] in(NULL)

2002-05-23 Thread Joel Burton
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of jose > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [BUGS] in(NULL) > > > Hi all, > > I think I found a bug using the IN operator. > > > I have a tabl

Re: [BUGS] Bug #670: netmask displayed for a /32

2002-05-23 Thread Edwin Groothuis
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 10:12:20AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > But the /y portion is shown in this case: > > pmoanalysis=> select ipaddress||'a' from dhcpservers; > > ?column? > > - > > 1.2.3.4/32a > > (1 row) > > This implicitly coerces the inet value

Re: [BUGS] in(NULL)

2002-05-23 Thread Tom Lane
jose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think I found a bug using the IN operator. > select * from t where b not in (11,22,NULL); This is not a bug. The behavior of NOT IN with NULLs is not very intuitive but it is correct according to the SQL standard. The result can only be FALSE (when b is 11 o

[BUGS] Bug #674: JDBC: DatabaseMetaData.getColumns() "feature"

2002-05-23 Thread pgsql-bugs
Holger Mitterwald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3 The lower the number the more severe it is. Short Description JDBC: DatabaseMetaData.getColumns() "feature" Long Description When trying to call the method DatabaseMetaData.getColumns with a a tablenamepattern (sTableName

Re: [BUGS] Numeric Datatype

2002-05-23 Thread Tom Lane
"Terence Ingram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why is this so? Numeric literals too large to fit in an int are interpreted as floats. You can work around the issue by explicitly coercing the literal to numeric, or by single-quoting it (so that its type is not determined until after agency_uid is

Re: [BUGS] Numeric Datatype

2002-05-23 Thread Tom Lane
I said: > You can work around the issue by explicitly coercing the literal to > numeric, or by single-quoting it (so that its type is not determined > until after agency_uid is known to be numeric), or by updating to PG > 7.2 which uses a slightly different set of type-resolution rules. Actually,

[BUGS] Bug #675: Is there any way to free up some more space?

2002-05-23 Thread pgsql-bugs
Ralph Lecessi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3 The lower the number the more severe it is. Short Description Is there any way to free up some more space? Long Description Firstly, Kudos to you all for making such a mature product available as an open source distribution. I

Re: [BUGS] in(NULL)

2002-05-23 Thread Jean-Luc Lachance
Jose, First, do not waste your time comparing PG to MySql: MySql IS NOT SQL! Second, any operation on NULL is NULL. Third, no set can include NULL. You want to rewrite your query as: select * from t where b in (11,22) or b is null; jose wrote: > > Hi all, > > I think I found a bug using the I

[BUGS] length limitation in '=' operator when comparing TEXT fields ?

2002-05-23 Thread Michael Beckstette
Hi, i have a little problem when selecting entries from a table, specified by a long match on a field of type TEXT. Is there a length limitation for the '=' operator when comparing a field of type TEXT to a given string ? Example: SELECT description FROM sequences_33 WHERE description LIKE 'gi

Re: [BUGS] length limitation in '=' operator when comparing TEXT fields ?

2002-05-23 Thread Tom Lane
"Michael Beckstette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > i have a little problem when selecting entries from a table, specified by a > long match on a field of type TEXT. Is there a length limitation for the '=' > operator when comparing a field of type TEXT to a given string ? No. > Example: > SELE

Re: [BUGS] length limitation in '=' operator when comparing TEXT fields ?

2002-05-23 Thread Michael Beckstette
Hi, ok my fault. It was a cut and paste error, there is no leading blank. In my view this only happens when the strings to compare are quite "long". If there is no limitation for the '=' operator itself,could it be possible that something like this happens when the query is passed through LIPQ's P