Hi All,
on numerous times I had fell onto postgress complaining, that I try to
create foreign key, pointing to a set not embraced within a unique key
constraint.
Here is the case:
CREATE TABLE one (id int not null unique, info text);
CREATE TABLE two (id int not null unique, ofone int
I scratched around some more, found doc/pgpool-en.html and my ignorance
has been somewhat lessened.
My previous config was almost right except for:
pgpool2_hostname = ''
#backend_data_directory0
#backend_data_directory1
and my Linux distro had assigned hostname 'slave1' to localhost, on which
On Sun, August 10, 2008 3:03 pm, Henry wrote:
I scratched around some more, found doc/pgpool-en.html and my ignorance
has been somewhat lessened.
oi, wrong list /blushes
I really should *not* use multi-users under one login in squirrelmail...
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 1:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CREATE TABLE two (id int not null unique, ofone int references one(id),
CREATE TABLE three(one int not null, two int, info text, foreign key (one,
two) references two (one, id));
I get the following error:
ERROR: there is no unique
Richard Broersma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 1:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since table TWO has a unique constraint on column ID, the (ID, OFONE) pair
will also be unique, obviously.
This statement is not completely true. The only part of the pair that
is true is
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 07:10:10AM -0700, Richard Broersma wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 1:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CREATE TABLE two (id int not null unique, ofone int references one(id),
CREATE TABLE three(one int not null, two int, info text, foreign key (one,
two) references
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure if there's a fundamental reason why there has to be an index that
exactly matches the foreign key or not -- offhand I can't think of one.
The reason why is that the SQL spec says so:
a) If the referenced table and columns
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure if there's a fundamental reason why there has to be an
index that
exactly matches the foreign key or not -- offhand I can't think of one.
The reason why is that the SQL spec says so:
a) If the referenced table and columns
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reason why is that the SQL spec says so:
a) If the referenced table and columns specifies a
reference
column list, then the set of column names contained
in that reference column list shall be equal to the
set of column names contained in the unique column
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reason why is that the SQL spec says so:
a) If the referenced table and columns specifies a
reference
column list, then the set of column names contained
in that reference column list shall be equal to the
set of column names contained in the unique column
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's just a special case of what would be expected to happen with
memory
allocation anyways though. Few allocators return memory to the OS
anyways.
Well, that does happen on Linux for instance. Since Matt knew in his
original report that the
Hello,
I'm trying to create a messageing service, like in facebook. Basically
a member can write messages to another member. It will have three main
functions. One, basic messaging to another member. Two, notification
from system to a group of members (a list of members), Three, an
update report
Matt Magoffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm following up on this thread from a month ago on PG 8.3 memory use. I'm
afraid even after updating to 8.3.3 + this patch, I still see the same
overall memory trend. You can see what I'm looking at here with a couple
of memory graphs.
These numbers
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, RASHA OSMAN wrote:
How long it takes the operating system to fulfil a page demand, ie,
reading the page from disk or from the OS cache to the Postgres shared
buffer. Also how long it takes the bgwriter to flush a page from the
shared buffer into the OS cache or disk.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm load testing a machine, and i'm seeing idle in transaction
processes that are no longer hooked to any outside
On Tuesday 05 August 2008 03:12:26 Sim Zacks wrote:
There seems to be a disconnect between the mailing list and the
newsgroup right now. I received a bunch of replies via email that did
not show up in the newsgroup. (I did not receive any messages that were
sent to the mailing list and not to
16 matches
Mail list logo
