Any comments?
This is vacuum... And it happends several time.
PostgreSQL 7.0.2
-- ðÅÒÅÓÌÁÎÎÏÅ ÓÏÏÂÝÅÎÉÅ --
Subject: Postgres update
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:00:01 -0500 (EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WebmailStation User)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
psql:/home/www/www.webmailstation
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I definitly consider this a bug but other people may disagree with me. What
> I want to know is if it's excluded for any particular reason.
Nobody's bothered to write the operators. Are you volunteering?
regards, tom l
I definitly consider this a bug but other people may disagree with me. What
I want to know is if it's excluded for any particular reason.
=> select -1;
?column?
-1
=> select +1;
ERROR: Unable to identify a left operator '+' for type 'int4'
You may need to add parentheses o
Hi,
I am new to PostgreSQL and I am trying to convert a MySQL database over.
There are a couple of basics I need to clear up:
On the numeric INT types can they be set to unsigned? I have 32-bit &
64bit unsigned integers that I need to store in the majority of the tables
in the database. All the
From: "Mike E" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 12:13 PM
Subject: [GENERAL] Time Difference
> I have the following setup:
>
> appt=# select * from availability \g
> emp_id |date| start_time | end_time
> +++---
Mr. Lane,
>> Why is this? We're running 7.0.2 and have not performed any of these
>> compile-time gymnastics...and we're not having any problems
>
> Did you compile from source? If so I'd expect things to be fine. It's
> just the PPC RPMs that are (or, shortly, were) on our FTP server
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:50:05PM +0200, cp wrote:
> I received answer: "... Rule string too big"
> Is the problem with the limitation of the NUMBER of the fields or LENGTH of
> the string describing the rule ???
> Is it possible to get through this limitation however???
this is the common probl
"Robert Vogt IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Postgres 7.0.* doesn't work on PPC unless compiled -O0. The above is
>>> a typical symptom of being compiled with higher optimization settings.
>>> Unfortunately, it seems that our PPC RPMs for 7.0.2 were compiled with
>>> the wrong -O level :-(.
* Robert Vogt IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001028 12:10]:
[SNIP]
> By the way- does anybody know of any resources related to securing
> databases. We'd like to only allow certain users access to each database,
> but cannot find the appropriate section in any of the documentation pages.
Look at pg_
Isaac and Tom,
> Awesome, thanx. I thought i was doing something wrong. I suggest that some
> sort of warning about this go on the pgsql website (and other places where
> us PPC types will notice it) so no one else has to beat their head on the
> wall over this.
>
>> Postgres 7.0.* doesn't wo
Hi,
lets say I'm changing a table with alter. Of course related views etc are
broken, how can I find all tables etc. depended on that table ?
tia
mazek
Marcin Mazurek
--
Kierownik Działu Systemowego
MULTINET SA o/Poznan
http://www.multinet.pl/
Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ERROR: getattproperties: no attribute tuple 1259 -2
Postgres 7.0.* doesn't work on PPC unless compiled -O0. The above is
a typical symptom of being compiled with higher optimization settings.
Unfortunately, it seems that our PPC RPMs for 7.0.2 were compiled w
> > Is it possible to obtain a list of new features which are coming with
> > 7.1 ?
>
> I *believe* that the todo list that Bruce maintains has those features
> coming in the new release, that are finished, marked appropriately ... at
> least it used to be that way, Bruce?
Yes, marked with a das
set digest pgsql-general
14 matches
Mail list logo
