Tom,
Sort of piggybacking on this thread but why the suggestion to drop the
use of DISTINCT in 7.4? We use DISTINCT all over the place to eliminate
duplicates in sub select statements. Running 7.4.0 currently on
FreeBSD5.1 Dell 2650 4GB RAM 5 disk SCSI array hardware RAID 0
Example:
explain
Sean Shanny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sort of piggybacking on this thread but why the suggestion to drop the
use of DISTINCT in 7.4?
Because the 7.4 planner can decide for itself whether DISTINCT'ifying
the sub-select output is the best way to proceed or not. There is more
than one good way
Transactions are atomic. What you are asking to do violates the whole
concept of a transaction.
You can, however, do these inserts outside of the transaction block.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
- Original Message -
From: Chris Ochs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday,
Hi Tom,
thank you, I'll upgrade as soon as I can. Anyway I've already planned to do
so for a while.
I'll keep in mind your remarks concerning the DISTINCT clause too.
Bye and Best Regards,
-- Csaba
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom Lane
Is it possible to (automatically) force the reparse of a stored PL/pgSQL
function following the deletion and recreation of an object that was
referenced within the function (for example a table or another function)?
The need to re-create (create or replace ...) the function is a pain as
you have
On Wednesday 07 January 2004 04:38, Paul Mc Gee wrote:
hi everybody
i have postgresql installed on my red hat linux
machine and i want to load up a dumped postgresql
database which i have on cdrom. does anyone know how i
could do this?
You probably want to read up on pg_restore (and perhaps
Hi,
I have a stored procedure that is causing deadlocks when called multiple
times synchronously. The odd issue is that the deadlock seems to be
happening on different threads waiting for locks on transactions. What
exactly is this transaction lock?
ERROR: deadlock detected
DETAIL: Process
Another good way to handle this is to put a trigger on the table that
diverts inserts that would fail to a holding table. While this will slow
down the inserts, it will allow you to insert large lists of dubious
quality and worry about the bad rows later.
My preference is to fix the data
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
Is it possible to (automatically) force the reparse of a stored PL/pgSQL
function following the deletion and recreation of an object that was
referenced within the function (for example a table or another function)?
Would
CREATE OR REPLACE
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 16:52:12 -0800,
Chris Ochs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to do a series of inserts within a single transaction block, but with
postgresql if one insert fails, the whole block is aborted. Is there any
way to get around this behavior so that postgresql won't abort the
Another way is break the transaction. Instead of consisting of many
inserts, each insert is a transaction itself.
Do a Begin and a Commit (or rollback) circling the insert statement.
HTH
Rodrigo Malara
Em Qua, 2004-01-07 às 14:41, scott.marlowe escreveu:
Another good way to handle this is to put
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Tim McAuley wrote:
Hi,
I have a stored procedure that is causing deadlocks when called multiple
times synchronously. The odd issue is that the deadlock seems to be
happening on different threads waiting for locks on transactions. What
exactly is this transaction lock?
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 22:33:00 -0800,
Ezra Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you Bruno for the informative reply.
I'm not sure how ident solves this. I would like the session to run as the
actual user (via set session authorization) so that that user's actual privs
are enforced.
Tim McAuley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a stored procedure that is causing deadlocks when called multiple
times synchronously. The odd issue is that the deadlock seems to be
happening on different threads waiting for locks on transactions. What
exactly is this transaction lock?
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:31:22 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just a couple days ago added some logic to CVS tip to notice that the
sub-select has a DISTINCT clause, and not add unnecessary unique-ifying
processing on top of it. So in 7.5, writing a DISTINCT clause will
15 matches
Mail list logo