hello
what is RIR rules in Rewriter? What RIR means?
Thank you very much.
Jinqiang Han
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
Bruce Momjian kirjutas E, 17.03.2003 kell 20:49:
With no one replying on how to do correlated subqueries in FROM for
UPDATE,
Correlated subqueries not working in FROM cluse of UPDATE is IMHO a bug,
so the way to do correlated subqueries in FROM for UPDATE would be to
fix this bug ;)
All common
I'm having a problem with my postgresql email. I cannot access my imap
account on postgresql.org anymore. For two or three days now no mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has made it to me. And I wasn't able to conatct
Marc so far. The account is there as I can login via ssh.
So if you want to contact me,
Hi,
Just stumbled upon this. Is it correct to conclude that foreign keys are not
inherited from this text?
phd=# create table perbookings(type smallint) inherits (bookings);
CREATE TABLE
phd=# \d perbookings;
Table public.perbookings
Column |
Tom Lane kirjutas K, 19.03.2003 kell 16:46:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't sure it made logical sense to allow correlated subqueries in
FROM because the FROM is processed before the WHERE.
It doesn't; in fact it violates the whole semantic model of SQL,
as far as I can
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Shridhar Daithankar[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just stumbled upon this. Is it correct to conclude that foreign keys are not
inherited from this text?
Yes. If you want more info, check out the archives.
---(end of
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we set XMIN/MAX_IS_COMMITTED in a tuple header, we have to replace
a sub-transaction xid in xmin or xmax respectively with the
main-transaction xid at the same time. Otherwise we'd have to look
for the main xid, whenever a tuple is touched.
This
OK, I have a patch to fix this bug. The basic problem is that when a
multi-query string is passed to the backend, it is treated as a single
transaction _unless_ a transaction or GUC command appears in the string.
When they appear, a transaction is forced, but the normal transaction
state machine
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:18:38 -0500, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we set XMIN/MAX_IS_COMMITTED in a tuple header, we have to replace
a sub-transaction xid in xmin or xmax respectively with the
main-transaction xid at the same time. Otherwise we'd
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the sequence is first update xmin, then set the commit bit, we
never have an inconsistent state. And if the change is lost, it can
be redone by the next backend visiting the tuple.
Not if the subtransaction log state has been removed as no longer
I see no concurrency problems. If two or more backends visit the same
tuple, they either write the same value to the same position which
doesn't hurt, or one sees the other's changes which is a good thing.
AFAIR, on multi-CPU platforms it's possible that second transaction could
see COMMITTED
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:00:07 -0500, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if the change is lost, it can
be redone by the next backend visiting the tuple.
Not if the subtransaction log state has been removed as no longer
needed.
But this problem is not
To improve handling of autocommit off mode, I am proposing a change in
our next release. Right now, if you pass multiple queries in the same
string to the backend:
psql -c 'INSERT INTO test VALUES (1);INSERT INTO test VALUES (2); template1
the query is considered to be a single
mlw, would you modify this to use the config_path idea we agreed upon so
we can get this into 7.4?
---
mlw wrote:
This is a patch that allows PostgreSQL to use a configuration
file that is outside the main database
On 16 Mar 2003, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Tom Lane kirjutas R, 14.03.2003 kell 19:15:
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, just to throw out a wild idea: If you're talking about making large
changes to the on-the-wire protocol. Have you considered using an existing
database protocol?
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 04:33 am, you wrote:
Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 19:00, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
ODBC(maybe JDBC also) has cross-transaction result sets
(rather than cursors) since long by simply holding all
results for a query at client side.
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:26:05PM +0300, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
we have a little problem in new version of tsearch we're currently
working. We've implemented concatenation operation for txtidx type
and treat concatenation with NULL as NULL (as it
Anyway, on to MySQL. The had a booth there. I asked their technical guy
a few questions and he seemed to have a decent understanding. When I
asked the question, Why would I choose MySQL over something like
PostgreSQL? his response was There is one company driving MySQL. Also,
when we do
On 19 Mar 2003 at 9:20, Josh Berkus wrote:
Guys,
You make an astute observation that I think should become a strategy of the
advocacy team. That is to portray MySQL as a hobby database, but Postgres
as a production database. I think this is a very easy stance to take,
since I've always
I've been amusing myself the last several evenings by working on a
reimplementation of the NUMERIC datatype, along the lines of previous
discussion (use base-1 digits instead of base-10 so that the number
of iterations of the inner loops decreases by a factor of about 4).
It's not ready to
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Gregory Stark wrote:
Just some fixups to a couple contrib directories I was trying out.
. replace CREATE OR REPLACE AGGREGATE with a separate DROP and CREATE
. add DROP for all CREATE
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Here are a list of features that might be in 7.4. I know there are
several people involved in each of these items.
I think you forgot error codes and associated stuff.
--
Alvaro Herrera (alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl)
Sallah, I said
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, I have a patch to fix this bug. The basic problem is that when a
multi-query string is passed to the backend, it is treated as a single
transaction _unless_ a transaction or GUC command appears in the string.
When they appear, a
Hiroshi Inoue [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry I have a basic question.
Was there any consensus we would introduce nested transactions
(or savepoints) in the way currently discussed ?
I think we are a long way from saying we can or will actually do it.
Error handling and resource management (eg
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Here are a list of features that might be in 7.4. I know there are
several people involved in each of these items.
I think you forgot error codes and associated stuff.
That is part of the wire protocol
25 matches
Mail list logo
