Re: [HACKERS] semaphore usage port based?

2006-05-09 Thread Max Khon
Hi! On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 11:56:13PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: This is why it's disabled by default, and the jail documentation specifically advises of this possibility. Excerpt below. Ah, I see, glad to see it's accurately documented. As it has been for the last five years, I

Re: [HACKERS] RI oddness

2001-04-24 Thread Max Khon
hi, there! On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Jan Wieck wrote: I just got trapped by one of my own features in the referential integrity area. The problem is, that the trigger run on the FK row at UPDATE allways checks and locks the referenced PK, even if the FK

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in FOREIGN KEY

2001-01-23 Thread Max Khon
hi, there! On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote: This problem with foreign keys has been reported to me, and I have confirmed the bug exists in current sources. The DELETE should succeed: --- CREATE

[HACKERS] locking bug?

2000-12-16 Thread Max Khon
hi, there! test= create table foo(id int primary key); NOTICE: CREATE TABLE/PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index 'foo_pkey' for table 'foo' CREATE test= insert into foo values(1); INSERT 88959 1 test= create table bar(id int references foo); NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit

[HACKERS] left join bug?

2000-12-13 Thread Max Khon
hi, there! test=# create table a(id int primary key); NOTICE: CREATE TABLE/PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index 'a_pkey' for table 'a' CREATE test=# create table b(id int references a); NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit trigger(s) for FOREIGN KEY check(s) CREATE test=# insert into a