[HACKERS] Alter project: client or server side?

2001-09-24 Thread Jean-Michel POURE
Hello all, > >And the answer is "no, you can't". Recreate the table with correct types > >and insert the old values into it. > >You're kidding me, right? *prepares to gargle* MS Sql server can. Surely >we can implement this feature or aren't we aiming to go head to head with >commercial rdbms'?

Re: [HACKERS] [SQL] outer joins strangeness

2001-09-24 Thread Tom Lane
Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm going to CC this to -hackers, maybe someone will shed a light on the > internals of this. It's not unintentional. See http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.1/postgres/explicit-joins.html regards, tom lane --

[HACKERS] doc build error

2001-09-24 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
Has anyone successfully built docs recently? I got: cd sgml && /bin/tar -c -f ../admin.tar -T HTML.manifest *.gif *.css /bin/tar: *.gif: Cannot stat: No such file or directory -- Tatsuo Ishii ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all list

[HACKERS] Proposal: new GUC paramter

2001-09-24 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
I see following in src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c if (child && IsA(child, FromExpr)) { /* * Yes, so do we want to merge it into parent? Always do * so if child has just one element (since that doesn't * mak

Re: [HACKERS] Changing data types

2001-09-24 Thread Alex Pilosov
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Rod Taylor wrote: > Out of curiosity how was option a) implemented? I could envision > supporting multiple versions of a tuple style to be found within a > table (each described in pg_attribute). Gradually these would be > upgraded through normal use. Check the archives (lo

Re: [HACKERS] Changing data types

2001-09-24 Thread Alex Pilosov
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, mlw wrote: > To be honest I am very surprised that MS SQL supports that, but then > again Microsoft is so used to doing everything so utterly wrong, they > have to design all their products with the ability to support > fundamental design error corrections on the fly. > > I

Re: [HACKERS] ODBC driver flakieness

2001-09-24 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
Hi Gowey, Please post to pgsql-odbc list if the problem is ODBC specific. "Gowey, Geoffrey" wrote: > > Two problems (I've been holding back reporting until I ran into this > second): > > Background: I'm trying to migrate an existing db from MS Sql 2K to pgsql by > creating a DTS job. > > DB sys

Re: [HACKERS] Changing data types

2001-09-24 Thread mlw
"Gowey, Geoffrey" wrote: > > >This is not for -hackers. > > How so? > > >And the answer is "no, you can't". Recreate the table with correct types > >and insert the old values into it. > > You're kidding me, right? *prepares to gargle* MS Sql server can. Surely > we can implement this feature

Re: [HACKERS] Unicode combining characters

2001-09-24 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> So, this shows two problems : > > - length() on the server side doesn't handle correctly Unicode [I have > the same result with char_length()], and returns the number of chars > (as it is however advertised to do), rather the length of the > string. This is a known limitation. > - the p

[HACKERS] ODBC driver flakieness

2001-09-24 Thread Gowey, Geoffrey
Two problems (I've been holding back reporting until I ran into this second): Background: I'm trying to migrate an existing db from MS Sql 2K to pgsql by creating a DTS job. DB system info: NT 4 sp6a, MS SQL2K Regular, Pgsql ODBC driver 7.01.00.06. First problem: The ODBC driver reports a colum

[HACKERS] Unicode combining characters

2001-09-24 Thread Patrice Hédé
Hi all, while working on a new project involving PostgreSQL and making some tests, I have come up with the following output from psql : lang | length | length | text| text --+++---+--- isl | 7 | 6 | álíta | áleit isl | 7 | 7 |

Re: [HACKERS] CHECK problem really OK now...

2001-09-24 Thread Jan Wieck
Kovacs Baldvin wrote: > Hi everybody! > > I tried, and it works: the current CVS version really runs > happily the query what sent to heaven our 7.1 version of the > backend. > > Kevin: your original complex schema also runs smoothly. > > Thanks for our mindful developers! > > Regards, > Baldvin >

[HACKERS] CHECK problem really OK now...

2001-09-24 Thread Kovacs Baldvin
Hi everybody! I tried, and it works: the current CVS version really runs happily the query what sent to heaven our 7.1 version of the backend. Kevin: your original complex schema also runs smoothly. Thanks for our mindful developers! Regards, Baldvin I think Jan wrote: > Sorry, I missed

Re: [HACKERS] an already existing alter table drop column ?!?!?!

2001-09-24 Thread Gowey, Geoffrey
Also, rename the column to something else so a new one can be created in it's place with the same name. Do columns have their own oid's? If so this plus some random chars could be the new name. Geoff -Original Message- From: Gowey, Geoffrey Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 1:35 PM To:

Re: [HACKERS] an already existing alter table drop column ?!?!?!

2001-09-24 Thread Gowey, Geoffrey
I do like the flag idea as a temporary patch until a fully workable solution is available. Just run a delete on the column and then flag it so it takes up no space and is hidden. By doing this now a more perfect solution can be found later. Geoff -Original Message- From: Marc G. Four

Re: [HACKERS] an already existing alter table drop column ?!?!?!

2001-09-24 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Gowey, Geoffrey wrote: > damn. Is there a usable version being worked around? If so, how long before > it is available? too many dissending opinions on how it should (and shouldn't) be done ... the one that was put in pre-maturely needed 2x the disk space to do ... so if yo

Re: [HACKERS] an already existing alter table drop column ?!?!?!

2001-09-24 Thread Gowey, Geoffrey
damn. Is there a usable version being worked around? If so, how long before it is available? Geoff -Original Message- From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 1:14 PM To: Gowey, Geoffrey Cc: 'Hiroshi Inoue'; Stephan Szabo; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj

Re: [HACKERS] an already existing alter table drop column ?!?!?!

2001-09-24 Thread Marc G. Fournier
isn't On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Gowey, Geoffrey wrote: > Does this mean that the code is or isn't usable? > > Geoff > > -Original Message- > From: Hiroshi Inoue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 11:02 PM > To: Stephan Szabo > Cc: Gowey, Geoffrey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] anoncvs failure...

2001-09-24 Thread Patrick Welche
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:22:28AM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > okay, somehow you have two different CVSROOT's configured? > /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot was the old server, /projects/cvsroot is the > new one Any hints? I had done a (csh) cd /usr/src/local/pgsql find . -name Root -pri

Re: [HACKERS] [SQL] outer joins strangeness

2001-09-24 Thread Alex Pilosov
[moved to hackers] On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Stephan Szabo wrote: > > Postgres should understand that left outer join does not constrict join > > order... > > But it can. If your condition was a joining between the other table > and the right side of the left outer join, you'd have the same conditi

Re: [HACKERS] Beta time

2001-09-24 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Marc G. Fournier writes: > with all the changes going on, we're most likely looking at Oct 1st, > earliest ... things are startin to stabilize, but until that 18gig is > installed next week, we still have th eproblems with updating ftp, unless > Peter can clear out th e400+Meg in his acount? :)

Re: [HACKERS] an already existing alter table drop column ?!?!?!

2001-09-24 Thread Gowey, Geoffrey
Does this mean that the code is or isn't usable? Geoff -Original Message- From: Hiroshi Inoue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 11:02 PM To: Stephan Szabo Cc: Gowey, Geoffrey; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] an already existing alter table drop column ?!

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash caused by CHECK on child

2001-09-24 Thread Stephan Szabo
What version are you trying this script on? I'm not seeing a crash on my 7.2 devel system (and the update occurs). On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Kovacs Baldvin wrote: > -- Hi Kevin, and everyone! > -- > -- I don't think that I only found a minor bug compared to > -- the other you wrote in your last le

Re: [HACKERS] [SQL] outer joins strangeness

2001-09-24 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Alex Pilosov wrote: > On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Stephan Szabo wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Alex Pilosov wrote: > > > > Postgres treats join syntax as an explicit definition of what order to > > joins in. So, I'd guess it sees the first as: do the LOJ and then join > > that

Re: [HACKERS] Changing data types

2001-09-24 Thread Hannu Krosing
"Gowey, Geoffrey" wrote: > > One thought did just occur to me. It is at least theoretically possible to > simplisticly migrate on column type to another by reading in the data and > oid of the row into a struct, drop the column, create a new column with the > correct data type, and populate. Th

Re: [HACKERS] Changing data types

2001-09-24 Thread Hannu Krosing
"Gowey, Geoffrey" wrote: > > I posted this in my last message, but have not heard anything yet so I'm > wondering if it was overlooked. I need to know how to change a column from > being say a varchar(9) to an integer. Does anyone know how to change the > data type? create temptable as select

Re: [HACKERS] Changing data types

2001-09-24 Thread Gowey, Geoffrey
>This is not for -hackers. How so? >And the answer is "no, you can't". Recreate the table with correct types >and insert the old values into it. You're kidding me, right? *prepares to gargle* MS Sql server can. Surely we can implement this feature or aren't we aiming to go head to head with

Re: [HACKERS] Changing data types

2001-09-24 Thread Gowey, Geoffrey
One thought did just occur to me. It is at least theoretically possible to simplisticly migrate on column type to another by reading in the data and oid of the row into a struct, drop the column, create a new column with the correct data type, and populate. This is ugly, but it is better than sa

Re: [HACKERS] Changing data types

2001-09-24 Thread Alex Pilosov
This is not for -hackers. And the answer is "no, you can't". Recreate the table with correct types and insert the old values into it. On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Gowey, Geoffrey wrote: > I posted this in my last message, but have not heard anything yet so I'm > wondering if it was overlooked. I need

Re: [HACKERS] anoncvs failure...

2001-09-24 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Patrick Welche wrote: > On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 08:15:11PM -0500, Dominic J. Eidson wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > anoncvs: :pserer:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/projects/cvsroot > > > - passwd is blank, but postgresql should work just as well > > >

[HACKERS] Changing data types

2001-09-24 Thread Gowey, Geoffrey
I posted this in my last message, but have not heard anything yet so I'm wondering if it was overlooked. I need to know how to change a column from being say a varchar(9) to an integer. Does anyone know how to change the data type? Geoff ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [HACKERS] anoncvs failure...

2001-09-24 Thread Patrick Welche
On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 08:15:11PM -0500, Dominic J. Eidson wrote: > On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > anoncvs: :pserer:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/projects/cvsroot > > - passwd is blank, but postgresql should work just as well > > I can confirm that this works. Still no good for me

[HACKERS] Server crash caused by CHECK on child

2001-09-24 Thread Kovacs Baldvin
-- Hi Kevin, and everyone! -- -- I don't think that I only found a minor bug compared to -- the other you wrote in your last letter: the backend crash -- is caused by the same CHECK constraint in the child table. -- -- However, for you without time to analyzing Kevin's huge -- scheme, here is th

Re: [HACKERS] UTF-8 support

2001-09-24 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> Which ones belong to the backend and which ones to the frontend? > Or even more: which ones belong to the backend, which ones > to the frontend #1, which ones to the frontend #2, etc... > > For examle, I have two fronends: > > FE1: UNICODE, WIN1251 > FE2: KOI8, UNICODE > BE: UNICODE, LATIN1,