FYI, I think we are going to need two-phase commit, at least to
implement distributed transactions. I will add it to the TODO list.
---
Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~kemme/papers/vldb00.html
>
> Thanks
I'll be on vacation from 12/27/02 till 01/20/03.
Vadim
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, given that, is there really any reason why MOVE should return the
> number of rows that would have been fetched? Why not report the number
> of rows moved? Having two different MOVE commands from the same starting
> positions yield indisti
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 02:14:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sorry, I am not understanding. If he does:
> > ...
You can use it in a function:
CREATE FUNCTION test () returns setof test_type as ...
Chris
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of bigapple
> Sent: Friday, 27 December 2002 9:57 AM
> To: hacker_mailinglist
> Subject: [HACKERS] how to use c
hi,
I created a composite type as follows, but I couldn't know how to use it.
test=# create type test_type as (id int, name char(20));
CREATE TYPE
test=# create table student( a test_type);
ERROR: Attribute "a" has composite type test_type
who can tell me? thanks!
bigapple
ยก
I just found that Postgres fails to build against Tcl/Tk installed in a
nonstandard place (specifically, I'd put tcl 8.4.1 into /opt/tcl8.4).
The problem appears to be that the Makefiles ignore TCL_INCLUDE_SPEC,
which tclConfig.sh correctly sets up:
# String to pass to the compiler so that an exte
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sorry, I am not understanding. If he does:
> > ...
> > here, isn't he sitting at the start of the fourth row, no?
>
> No. He is sitting *on* the third row. If he now does FETCH 1, he will
> advance to and return the fourth row; on
Dear Tom
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:44:51 -0500
> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: pgsql-hackers list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Problems with 7.3.1
>
> Olivier PRENANT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Compile
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, I am not understanding. If he does:
> ...
> here, isn't he sitting at the start of the fourth row, no?
No. He is sitting *on* the third row. If he now does FETCH 1, he will
advance to and return the fourth row; on the other hand, if he does
FET
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why does the MOVE -3 return 2?
>
> Because he's successfully backed up over 2 real rows. Had he done FETCH
> -3 in the same situation, he'd have gotten back 2 rows; there is no
> third row it could have returned, so it's hard to argu
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does the MOVE -3 return 2?
Because he's successfully backed up over 2 real rows. Had he done FETCH
-3 in the same situation, he'd have gotten back 2 rows; there is no
third row it could have returned, so it's hard to argue that the count
should be a
Olivier PRENANT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Compile works ok however make check fails wile creating pl/pgsql with :
> WARNING: bt_getroot[pg_proc_proname_nsp_index]: fixing root page
> ERROR: bt_fixroot: not valid old root page.
Wow. Is the behavior reproducible? How about if you go ahead and
Tom Lane wrote:
> > This does not happen
> > if I replace the FETCHes by MOVEs.
>
> I'm a little confused by that remark; it seems to me that FETCH and MOVE
> have identical behaviors so far as repositioning the cursor is concerned.
> (Internally, MOVE *is* a FETCH, it just suppresses output of th
Barry Lind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The code is expecting the server to return the keyword MOVE followed by
> the number of rows actually moved. And on all tests on my databases
> this is always true, move is followed by a number. However from the
> information you have provided, it seems
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's something that's been bothering me for a while... Perhaps this
> is correct behaviour, but I can't quite see how.
It looks fine to me, given the underlying model of how a cursor works,
which probably isn't really written down anywhere :-(
Hi every one and happy Xmas. Hope you can still answer that one.
Waiting for my brand you server, I've installed an old bi-PII 300 unser
unixware 713 and trying postgresql 7.3.1 with it.
Compile works ok however make check fails wile creating pl/pgsql with :
WARNING: bt_getroot[pg_proc_proname_ns
17 matches
Mail list logo
