On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Jason Godden wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 06:25 am, Markus Bertheau wrote:
, 05.11.2003, 16:25, Tom Lane :
+#define HEXVALUE(c) (((c)='a') ? ((c)-87) : (((c)='A') ? ((c)-55) :
((c)-'0')))
This seems excessively dependent on the assumption that the character
On Thu, 7 Nov 2003, Grant McLean wrote:
So it would seem that if I include the clauses:
on delete restrict on update restrict
Then the 'deferrable' which follows is only applied to creates and
not to updates or deletes.
Since 'restrict' is the default, the clauses aren't adding
On Thu, 7 Nov 2003, Grant McLean wrote:
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 11:31, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2003, Grant McLean wrote:
So it would seem that if I include the clauses:
on delete restrict on update restrict
Then the 'deferrable' which follows is only applied
On Sun, 17 Nov 2003, Greg Stark wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What does BEGIN actually do now, from a user's perspective?
I think you're thinking about this all wrong. BEGIN doesn't do anything.
It's not a procedural statement, it's a declaration. It declares that the
block
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
BTW, one main consideration is that all the postgres admin apps will now
need to support ORDER BY attlognum for 7.5+.
But that is only really important if they've also used the ALTER TABLE
RESHUFFLE COLUMNS
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Andreas Pflug wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
There are two levels (sort of) of dependency. The first is that whole
classes of objects can be dependent on whole other classes. eg.
databases depend on users, or ALL FK's can be dumped after ALL tables,
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, ow wrote:
People might be more interested in debating this topic with you if we
hadn't discussed it at length just a couple months back. There wasn't
consensus then that we had to offer an escape hatch, and you've not
offered any argument that wasn't made before.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Quite honestly, I think they should check their foreign keys. In a
partial restore situation there is no guarantee that the referenced
table and the referencing table are being restored at the same time from
the same dump. An override in that situation
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
ow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite honestly, I think they should check their foreign keys.
Generally speaking, I agree. The problem is that verification of FK
constraint(s) may take too long, depending on the
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I was just annoyed to find out that a foreign key doesn't check whether
the referenced column has a sufficiently similar data type, it only checks
whether an = operator exists. This masks schema design errors and typos.
Should this be tightened up,
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, ow wrote:
--- Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually you can only have 4 billion SQL commands per xid, because the
CommandId datatype is also just 32 bits. I've never heard of anyone
running into that limit, though.
Wouldn't the above put a limit on a number
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, E.Rodichev wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
E.Rodichev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
/e:2createdb test
test | er | SQL_ASCII - Incorrect!
(3 rows)
Let's note than the last line is in fact completely incorrect.
What's incorrect
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, E.Rodichev wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, E.Rodichev wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
E.Rodichev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
/e:2createdb test
test | er | SQL_ASCII - Incorrect
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, E.Rodichev wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Stephan Szabo wrote:
Only the locale settings at initdb time matter. Changing the LC_* later
is not going to change what the database does. Encoding and locale are
separate (but related) and it is your responsibility to make sure
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, E.Rodichev wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Stephan Szabo wrote:
The locale settings depend on LC_* at initdb time only. When the
postmaster starts it sets the locale based on the stored values from
initdb, not on the current environment.
With an SQL_ASCII database
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Dave Cramer wrote:
same answer
davec=# show enable_seqscan;
enable_seqscan
off
(1 row)
davec=# explain analyze select * from url where fn_strrev(url) like
'%beta12.html';
That's still an unanchored like clause, besides I think that would get
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
I was looking at that last night. It seems like we could add a LIMIT at
least in some contexts. In the case at hand, we're
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Anthony Rich wrote:
In other words, by the time the second process has run the
SELECT...FOR UPDATE statement, it's too late!! This
second process is now locked forever, waiting for the
Or until statement_timeout is reached if it's set to a non-zero value.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello again,
I turn the discussion to the dev list as it seems more appropriate.
So about the proposed patch to warn if foreign key type do not match the
target key:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm really not sure that it makes
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Stephan,
CREATE TABLE foo(fid INT4 NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, ...);
CREATE TABLE bla(fid INT2 REFERENCES foo, ...);
The application will be fine till you enter fid=32767, and
it inserts will fail in bla with fid=32768. Much later on.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a little frustrated
select * from mytable where mystring = 'foo';
Uses an index
select * from mytable where mystring like 'foo';
Does not use an index.
I know Tom is not to excited about this, but I think it is a serious
problem. What
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a little frustrated
select * from mytable where mystring = 'foo';
Uses an index
select * from mytable where mystring like 'foo';
Does not use an index.
I know Tom is not to
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 07:35:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Seymour) writes:
Again the difference: With WebObjects running, deleting rows and
trying to vacuum immediately, even full, fails. Shut-down WebObjects
and I
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Fabien COELHO wrote:
From my point of view, my students come from a java first course, so they
have to learn again some new syntax and new operators. Small stuff, but
it can help to say same as java and go on to new concepts.
Don't you want them to learn SQL?
I
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Please see my previous e-mail about the value of international standards
for educators.
I read your email. I noticed that you want to educate me as an educator;-)
I partially agree with your point.
We have two words in French: education and
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only other idea I can think of is to create a new pg_path.conf file.
It would have the same format as postgresql.conf, but contain
information about /data location, config file location, and perhaps
pg_xlog
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Your Java students would be lulled into a false sense of understanding
out of the belief that == in PostgreSQL would work exactly like == in
Java ... when it wouldn't work the same in corner cases.
For the class I have in mind, there are no
Dear Stephan,
For the class I have in mind, there are no corner cases, just concepts and
basic practice. They are not going to be db developers, not even computer
So no string comparisons? I know that's a mostly unused corner case and
all, but... ;)
They survive to the idea that
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
I've spent some more time reading specs today. Together with Peter E's
explanataion (Thanks!) I think I've got a farily good understanding of the
parts talking about locales now.
My next question is about lexing. The spec says that one can use
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
You can take some Postgres pieces and use them in a project with a
different overall license, but those pieces are still under BSD license.
But that's not the BSD license.
[...]
The BSD license, in contrast to PostgreSQL's,
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 05:22, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
When I ask about non-standard complience of Pg (turning unquoted
identifiers to lowercase instead of uppercase, violating the SQL
standard, and
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
I've tried just changing the parser to unconditionally casefold to upper.
First thing that happens is that initdb breaks. In addition, you have
potential issues with comparisons against the catalog's versions of
standard
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
I've tried just changing the parser to unconditionally casefold to upper.
First thing that happens is that initdb breaks. In addition, you have
potential issues with comparisons
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
So what I'm holding out for is a design that lets me continue to see the
current behavior if I set a GUC variable that says that's what I want.
This seems possible (not easy, but possible) if we are willing to
require the choice
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
Are we going to get rid of the current behavior entirely?
I doubt that will be a good idea. You want to let applications created
for previous versions of PostgreSQL continue to work. The idea, I think,
is to have either a DB
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
Things like don't worry about the catalog
entries don't fly when your standard functions are defined and
looked up there.
Answer above.
Okay, under that world view
On Thu, 20 May 2004, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 15:17:01 +0200,
Atesz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to ask why the index scaning can't move on an index in
multi-order directions (For exapmle: 1.column: forward, 2.column:
backward and 3.column: forward again)?
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Patrick Welche's recent problems (see pgsql-general) point out that the
old CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER syntax that optionally omits a FROM
table clause doesn't work anymore --- the system *needs* tgconstrrelid
to be set in an RI constraint trigger record,
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, if we are going to put that kind of knowledge into pg_dump,
it would only be a small further step to have it dump these triggers
as ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT commands instead. Which would be a lot
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have seen no discussion on whether to go ahead with a 7.2.3 to add
several serious fixes Tom has made to the code in the past few days.
Are we too close to 7.3 for this to be worthwhile? Certainly there will
be people distributing 7.2.X for some
I've been working on kludging a working
for update barrier style lock (*) for reads
using HeapTupleSatisfiesDirty to test
accessibility to make the foreign keys
work better. I'm fairly close to getting
a testable kludge for the fk/noaction cases
for people to check real sequences against
(since
I wasn't particularly clear (sorry, wrote the message
1/2 right before bed, 1/2 right after getting up) so
I'm going to followup with details and hope that
I'm more awake.
A little background just in case there are people
that haven't looked.
Right now, foreign key checks always default to
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Magnus Naeslund(f) wrote:
Hello, i've got this query that's really slow...
Figure this:
testdb= select now() ; select gid from bs where gid not in ( select x
from z2test ); select now();
Per FAQ suggestion, try something like
select gid from bs where not exists (select
On 15 Oct 2002, John Halderman wrote:
I'm currently using 7.3b2 for test and development. I ran into a problem
using a dumped schema from pg_dump. After importing the dumped schema,
any delete or update involving a foreign key results in a relation 0
does not exist error. I noticed that all
On 29 Oct 2002, Ives Landrieu wrote:
Hi,
Can anybody explain the following results when using EXPLAIN,
one time with enable_seqscan=on and one time with enable_seqscan=off.
What I don't understand is that the nodes created are the same
(index scan, seq scan), but the costs differ.
Enable
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On 29 Oct 2002, Ives Landrieu wrote:
Hi,
Can anybody explain the following results when using EXPLAIN,
one time with enable_seqscan=on and one time with enable_seqscan=off.
What I don't understand is that the nodes created are the same
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Pedro Miguel Frazao Fernandes Ferreira wrote:
In C this is possible:
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
int main(void)
{
double v;
char a[30];
v=1.79769313486231571e+308;
printf( Stored double number: %25.18g\n,v);
sprintf(a,%25.18g,v);
On 26 Oct 2002, Doug McNaught wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug McNaught [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
make[3]: Entering directory
`/home/doug/src/pgsql/src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/ascii_and_mic'
gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -fpic
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Pedro Miguel Frazao Fernandes Ferreira writes:
Is there a way to set query output precision to maximum precision ?
For the type of application I mentioned this is crucial. People want to
get the 'same' numbers, from querys or dumps, as they
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Pedro Miguel Frazao Fernandes Ferreira wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Pedro Miguel Frazao Fernandes Ferreira writes:
Is there a way to set query output precision to maximum precision ?
For the type of application I
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Pedro M. Ferreira wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Pedro Miguel Frazao Fernandes Ferreira wrote:
I understand that if people insert a value of 1.1 in a double, they want
to get 1.1 without knowing that in fact the stored number is
1.10009
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Igor Georgiev wrote:
edit *pg_hba.conf *
# Allow any user on the local system to connect to any
# database under any username, but only via an IP connection:
host all 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255trust
#
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Igor Georgiev wrote:
Next your going to ask what will stop root from stopping your
PostgreSQL, compiling a second copy with authentication disabled and
using your data directory as it's source :)
He he somebody can blow up ur home with C4, but this don't stop you
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
Hi i think a hit a major problem on 7.2.1.
I run 3 systems with postgresql 7.2.1.
Its a redhat 7.1 for development, a redhat 7.3 for production
and a FreeBSD 4.6.1RC2 for testing.
After long runs (with periodic (daily) vacuum analyze's)
i
I've been wondering (and probably should look through
the code, but figured asking would be faster) if there's
any guarantee that I'll see rows inserted by a transaction
I'm waiting on in the middle of a query.
Basically, if I've got a select that's running using
HeapTupleSatisfiesDirty so that
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Basically, if I've got a select that's running using
HeapTupleSatisfiesDirty so that I can see uncommitted rows
and I block in the middle for another transaction (waiting
to see if it commits the row I'm looking
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, snpe wrote:
Hello,
I work with JDeveloper and PostgreSQL JDBC and I have one problem.
I get error :
sub-SELECT in FORM must have an alias
I can't change SQL command, but it is internal JDeveloper command
Is it SQL standard (must have alias) or PostgreSQL specific ?
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Peter Schindler wrote:
But, if a lot of inserts happens into the child table and there is a
mix of short and long running transactions, the likelihood of blocking
is very high, even the inserts are independent and everything is ok
(prim. key etc.). This is even more
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Scott Shattuck wrote:
It might just be me but it seems that this discussion is missing the
point if we believe this request is about saving some characters. I
don't think it is. I think it's about being able to write simple SQL
scripts that don't produce errors when you
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, snpe wrote:
Problem is when I want change view (or functions) with a lot of dependecies
I must drop and recreate all dependent views (or functions) - I want add only
one column in view
I don't know if solution hard for that.
Well, doing create or replace as a
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
Problem is when I want change view (or functions) with a lot of dependecies
I must drop and recreate all dependent views (or functions) -
I want add only one column in view
I don't know if solution hard for that.
I do not see how
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Manfred Koizar wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:22:51 -0800 (PST), Stephan Szabo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now, I know that it has a hole that lets through invalid data
Stephan, your patch has been posted to -general (Subject: Re:
[GENERAL] Help..Help
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
Just wonder how are you going to implement it - is it by using
some kind of read-locks, ie FK transaction locks PK to prevent
delete (this is known as pessimistic approach)?
About two years ago we discussed with Jan optimistic approach
with using
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
A collation table essentially consists of a mapping 'character code -
weight' for every character in the set and some additional considerations
for one-to-many and many-to-one mappings, plus a few feature flags.
How would a user go about creating
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Daniele Orlandi wrote:
Are those two syntaxes eqivalent ?
select * from users where monitored;
select * from users where monitored=true;
If the answer is yes, the optimimer probably doesn't agree with you :)
That depends on the definition of equivalent. They
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Are those two syntaxes eqivalent ?
select * from users where monitored;
select * from users where monitored=true;
If the answer is yes, the optimimer probably doesn't agree with you :)
That depends on the definition of
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
col isn't of the general form indexkey op constant or constant op
indexkey which I presume it's looking for given the comments in
indxpath.c. I'm not sure what the best way to make it work would be
given
that presumably we'd
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Just out of interest, if someone was going to pay you to hack on Postgres
for 6 months, what would you like to code for 7.4?
What would you guys do? Even if it isn't feasible right now...
Hmm, mine would probably be fixing foreign keys
On 30 Nov 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
On Sat, 2002-11-30 at 12:47, Stephan Szabo wrote:
check constraints with subselects.
Have we decided how this would even work? Last I heard, Tom still had
some major reservations about the practicality of implementing these --
for example, would you re
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 30 Nov 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
Have we decided how this would even work? Last I heard, Tom still had
some major reservations about the practicality of implementing these --
for example, would you re-evaluate
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Magnus Naeslund(f) wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you use a scalar subquery, yes, but I think a subselect in from
would help, maybe something like (if you want the total count)
select table_name.id, sum(sum_col)||'/'||t2.count from table_name
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Magnus Naeslund(f) wrote:
Now convert this query so that it only evaluates the date_part thing
ONCE:
That's not a good idea as long as t.stamp varies from row to row. ;)
Perhaps once per row, maybe... :)
select t.id, date_part('days',now()-t.stamp) from table_name t
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Magnus Naeslund(f) wrote:
Good!
Now convert this query so that it only evaluates the date_part thing
ONCE:
select t.id, date_part('days',now()-t.stamp) from table_name t where
date_part('days',now()-t.stamp) 20;
I hope you all are
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Dan Langille wrote:
We support alter table add foreign key. How about supporting
alter table drop foreign key?
- he said as he went to drop a foreign key
It seems to work for me on my 7.3b2 system with
alter table table drop constraint constraint name;
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Dan Langille wrote:
On 5 Dec 2002 at 8:20, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Dan Langille wrote:
We support alter table add foreign key. How about supporting
alter table drop foreign key?
- he said as he went to drop a foreign key
It seems
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Dan Langille wrote:
Found the solution:
drop trigger RI_ConstraintTrigger_4278488 on watch_list_staging;
Actually there are three triggers for the constraint. You may have
dangling triggers on the other table of the constraint. It's one on the
table the constraint's
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Dan Langille wrote:
On 5 Dec 2002 at 9:02, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Dan Langille wrote:
Found the solution:
drop trigger RI_ConstraintTrigger_4278488 on watch_list_staging;
Actually there are three triggers for the constraint. You may have
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Dan Langille wrote:
On 5 Dec 2002 at 9:31, Stephan Szabo wrote:
When we talk about ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY we're being imprecise, so
I think that might be why we're talking past each other here.
Technically the syntax in question is:
ALTER TABLE table ADD
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, [iso-8859-1] Diego T. wrote:
Hello I'm an Italian student of computer science at
University of Rome La Sapienza. I've to analyze some
daemons which run under root privileges with a tool
developed by my departement. This tool intercepts
critical syscalls, like Execve,
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see the values being stored on constriant creation, but not being used
anywhere:
I believe the values that actually get inspected at runtime are the
tgdeferrable and tginitdeferred
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paesold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now setting autocommit=off the set transaction isolation level command does
not show any effect:
billing=# set autocommit to off;
SET
billing=# set transaction isolation level serializable;
SET
SET does
On 2 Jan 2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
I think I initially forgot those options, and Stephans patch seems to be
everything required -- though the psql display is a little more
cluttered.
IIRC, theoretically only initially immediate deferrable actually
needs to specify both clauses (initially
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Does anybody know:
select 1.0 union select 1;
or
select 1 union select 1.0;
should return 1 or 1.0?
Hmm, I think (but am not sure) that the spec bit
in SQL92 that addresses this is 9.3
Set operation result data types based on the
text in 7.10
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, I think (but am not sure) that the spec bit
in SQL92 that addresses this is 9.3
Set operation result data types based on the
text in 7.10 query expression. It seems
to say to me that should always
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that the spec has a fairly hardwired notion of what types
should come out given the sql types. The biggest problems that I can
see are that it doesn't extend well to an extensible type system
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Al Sutton wrote:
I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the
code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more
unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract
existing windows-only developers
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I just noticed you can do this:
create table blah (
a not null references test on delete set null
)
Should that be prevented? It shouldn't be too hard to test for really...
Maybe, although I don't think the spec prevents it. In
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 21:23:01 -0800,
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I just noticed you can do this:
create table blah (
a not null references test on delete set null
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, mlw wrote:
Robert Treat wrote:
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 09:23, mlw wrote:
I deal with a number of PG databases on a number of sites, and it is a
real pain in the ass to get to a PG box and hunt around for data
directory so as to be able to administer the system.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, mlw wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 09:23, mlw wrote:
I deal with a number of PG databases on a number of sites, and it is a
real pain in the ass to get to a PG box and hunt around for data
directory so as to be able to administer the system. What's
Going through the issues in doing dirty reads in foreign keys I've come up
with a few cases that I'm fairly uncertain about how to handle with
regards to deadlocks and figured I should ask for advice because I think
I'm missing something painfully obvious, but don't get large enough blocks
of
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only other solution is a #ifdef win32 around places that potentially
use integers in the divisor and do some nasty hacking.
Well, it seems to me that we have two different issues to worry about:
1. There
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
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Mario Weilguni wrote:
As promised here's an example of deadlock using foreign keys.
create table lang (
id integer not null primary key,
name text
);
insert into lang values (1, 'English');
insert into lang values (2, 'German');
create table country (
id
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Michael Loftis wrote:
I know I know, replying to myself is bad and probably means I'm going
insane but thought of one other thing...
Realistically the system should choos *ANY* index over a sequential
table scan. Above a fairly low number of records any indexed query
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
This particular test involves a table with a foreign-key reference to
itself, ie, it's both PK and FK. What apparently is happening is that
the two RI triggers are now being fired in a different order than
before. While either of them would have
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Didn't someone (Peter?) say that the mandated firing order was based on
creation order/time in SQL99?
It does say that:
The order of execution of a set of triggers is ascending by value
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
Hi,
On 7.2.1 debian-unstable PG hangs when trying to drop a table which
contains a field referencing another field in the same table as a
foreign key.
Is it legal/orhtodox to use a references on another field of the same
table?
Should
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
Hi all,
The SQL92 spec has this to say about SET CONSTRAINTS DEFERRED:
a) If ALL is specified, then the constraint mode in TXN of all
constraints that are DEFERRABLE is set to deferred.
b) Otherwise, the constraint mode in TXN for
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2002 10:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
My reading of this: if you specify ALL, only the constraints marked
as DEFERRABLE are affected. If you specify a specific
1 - 100 of 487 matches
Mail list logo
