- Original Message -
From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darko Prenosil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] improper call to spi_printtup ???
Darko Prenosil [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyone knows what I'm doing
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index foo_pkey for table
foo
is conveying any useful information?
Maybe there should be another level called NOVICE :-)
--
/Dennis Björklund
---(end of
seems evgen has got a sql99 compliant version of recursive SQL out and would agree to
relicense it.
are there any other concerns regarding evgens work? or do you want to encourage him to
go this route? i have the impression he would happily join in on the postgres
developement wrt recursive
On P, 2004-06-27 at 17:53, Tom Lane wrote:
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do I need to do in order to get the width specifier into my type?
Rewrite the grammar. Width modifiers are only supported on types that
are hard-wired into the grammar, mainly because they look way
Just wrote a function that takes view name as argument and generates INSERT,
UPDATE and DELETE rules for that view. It is working OK (thanks to Tom), but
I have trouble with INSERT rule.
When inserting directly into table, default values are filled in when the
field is not in the insert
Hi Evgen,
I'm a PostgreSQL developer and I would like to see an SQL99 recursive
queries feature in PostgreSQL.
I'm pretty sure that Tom would be happy with an SQL99 compliant version
of your patch, so long as it's up to scratch with the normal PostgreSQL
coding and reliability standards.
I'm
On T, 2004-06-29 at 13:11, jacob koehler (RRes-Roth) wrote:
seems evgen has got a sql99 compliant version of recursive SQL
out and would agree to relicense it.
are there any other concerns regarding evgens work? or do you want to
encourage him to go this route? i have the impression he would
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:25:27 +0900,
Satoshi Nagayasu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't want to wait one or more minutes just for a lock.
I need to return a message to the user retry later. or
something like that. It depends on various applications.
Why not set statement timeout low
Dennis Bjorklund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index foo_pkey for table
foo
is conveying any useful information?
Maybe there should be another level called NOVICE :-)
Not a bad idea --- could satisfy
Dear Tom,
Fabien COELHO [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's more a fix-me later approach, but it does not look that bad, IMHO.
It seems a bit risky to me. The worst possible consequence of the
ownership stuff not happening is that objects have wrong ownership (and
even there it's not so much
Darko Prenosil [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just wrote a function that takes view name as argument and generates INSERT,
UPDATE and DELETE rules for that view. It is working OK (thanks to Tom), but
I have trouble with INSERT rule.
When inserting directly into table, default values are filled
Hello,
we want use dblink to connect several databases in a client/server environment.
Connection from local users to the remote databases should be possible only for
privileged users. We tried a solution with dblink, embedding this command in a view,
like this:
create view inst as select *
Write a function that returns connection parameters (instead of hardcoding
it into view) using CURENT_USER as parameter.
create view inst as select * from dblink(
get_connection_param(CURRENT_USER) )
where get_connection_param is Your function returning text. Using system
user name is not
Tom,
I'd accept a mechanism to enforce a timeout at the lock level if you
could show me a convincing use-case for lock timeouts instead of
statement timeouts, but I don't believe there is one. I think this
proposal is a solution in search of a problem.
Hmmm ... didn't we argue this out with
I'm having trouble accessing specific schemas and wonder if maybe I
haven't installed something properly in 7.4.2. Here is what is
happening:
SELECT * FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA;
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near .
This error appears when I try to access ANY specific schema. Help!
I do not have it here(at home), but I can send it tomorrow from work.
This is first implementation and have some restrictions:
1.) all tables that are updated from view must have primary key field
included into view.
2.) primary key fields can't be updated directly from view.
3.)
PostgreSQL 7.2.2 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat
Linux 8.0.3.2-7)
(1 row)
Hmmm... Makes me think I'm accessing the wrong version of PostgreSQL. Does that sound
likely?
-Original Message-
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Cason, Kenny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm having trouble accessing specific schemas and wonder if maybe I
haven't installed something properly in 7.4.2. Here is what is
happening:
SELECT * FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA;
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near .
This error appears when
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 18:36, Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
I'd accept a mechanism to enforce a timeout at the lock level if you
could show me a convincing use-case for lock timeouts instead of
statement timeouts, but I don't believe there is one. I think this
proposal is a solution in search
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:07:30PM -0700, Cason, Kenny wrote:
I'm having trouble accessing specific schemas and wonder if maybe I
haven't installed something properly in 7.4.2. Here is what is
happening:
SELECT * FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA;
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near .
A while ago it was speculated that it might be nice to have a default
service in libpq's pg_service.conf file that would supply missing
connection parameters if none are specified elsewhere, so users could,
say, set the default server host in a configuration file instead of
environment
Tom,
I'd accept a mechanism to enforce a timeout at the lock level if you
could show me a convincing use-case for lock timeouts instead of
statement timeouts, but I don't believe there is one. I think this
proposal is a solution in search of a problem.
Hmmm ... didn't we argue this
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:46:34PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
A while ago it was speculated that it might be nice to have a default
service in libpq's pg_service.conf file that would supply missing
connection parameters if none are specified elsewhere, so users could,
say, set the
I'm rounding up last bits of Archive Recovery work now...
One of these is to give my humble opinion of where Archive Recovery fits
into the mix of options for PostgreSQL. This is effectively a
positioning of the high availability options.
Firstly, my experience comes from larger enterprises
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 01:24:05PM -0700, Cason, Kenny wrote:
PostgreSQL 7.2.2 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2 20020903 (Red
Hat Linux 8.0.3.2-7)
(1 row)
Hmmm... Makes me think I'm accessing the wrong version of PostgreSQL. Does that
sound likely?
Certainly ... at
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As with the bufmgr.c original patch, I don't really know how to test
that this actually works. I fooled around with printing what it was
doing during a subtrans commit/abort, and it seems OK, but that's about
it. In what situations can a transaction
removed from lists ...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Could some kind person please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask him to
fix the filters that generate bounces from things I send to PG mailing
lists? My attempts have failed.
I get this:
... while talking to strader.xs4all.nl:
550
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:59:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As with the bufmgr.c original patch, I don't really know how to test
that this actually works. [...]
I forgot to mention to you that that code didn't work at all, btw.
Bad news, I guess.
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 21:24, Cason, Kenny wrote:
PostgreSQL 7.2.2 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2 20020903 (Red
Hat Linux 8.0.3.2-7)
(1 row)
Hmmm... Makes me think I'm accessing the wrong version of PostgreSQL. Does that
sound likely?
Yes. You can get into
unsubscribe-digest
--
TEL:021-50504740-6124
Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
www.bfo.com.cn
--
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm ... yes, this could be very ugly indeed, but I haven't even looked
at the executor code so I can't comment. Are executor nodes copyable?
Nope, and even if we had support for that the executor tree per se
is just the tip of the iceberg. There's also
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, I think the treatment of locking in the docs could use some
improvement. Especially wrt MVCC and pessimistic locking and the 'big
picture' issues going on there (especially why the former is better than
the latter).
Send a patch ...
32 matches
Mail list logo
