At 22:23 13/11/00 -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>Admittedly, having an SQLSTATE style error code would help once we had
>that so you could actually figure out what the error was.
Yep, that would be nice.
>> Totally agree; transactions will keep locks. Release them as soon as the
>> business rules
> >When you start a transaction,
> >you're telling the backend "treat all of these statements as one, big,
> >all or nothing event."
>
> This is actually contrary to the standard. Statements are atomic, and a
> failed statement should not abort the TX:
>
> The execution of all SQL-statemen
At 14:08 13/11/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Cristi Petrescu-Prahova wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to insert a bunch of rows in a table in a transaction. Some of
>> the insertions will fail due to constraints violation. When this happens,
>> P
> Can someone show me how to create (and use) an int8
> sequence?
>From what I can tell (both from docs and doing a
describe on sequences in my database), a postgresql
sequence is an int4, not an int8, and thus you are
limited to a max of 2.1 billion values.
If you require an int8 sequence, you'
Multiple transactions carry a price: one cannot isolate the insertions from
other sessions. This is not desirable in my case.
The second suggestion is valuable.
Thanks,
Cristi
- Original Message -
From: Edmar Wiggers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Cristi Petrescu-Prahova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[E
I believe the known mechanism to cope with errors inside transactions are
savepoints. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.
If you don't care if some inserts fail, then you have multiple transactions
instead of just one (use autocommit).
If you want a transaction, check existence before eac
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Cristi Petrescu-Prahova wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to insert a bunch of rows in a table in a transaction. Some of
> the insertions will fail due to constraints violation. When this happens,
> Postgres automatically ends the transaction and rolls bac
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Cristi Petrescu-Prahova wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to insert a bunch of rows in a table in a transaction. Some of
> the insertions will fail due to constraints violation. When this happens,
> Postgres automatically ends the transaction and rolls back all the previous
>
Hello,
I would like to insert a bunch of rows in a table in a transaction. Some of
the insertions will fail due to constraints violation. When this happens,
Postgres automatically ends the transaction and rolls back all the previous
inserts. I would like to continue the transaction and issue the
Marten Feldtmann wrote:
>
> Throw away all the "hardwired"-stuff and do it with software. I
> once described an algorithm in one of this lists how to create
> unique values for clients without minimum interaction with the
> database.
>
> The result: query once in the beginning of your applicat
On 13 Nov 2000 10:30:55 PST, Dr Frog wrote:
>create sequnece seq_name ;
>
>there are additional options
>start sql and type
What are the "SQL" and "TYPE" options? I don't see reference to them in
the docs.
Can I use the TYPE option to create a sequence that's based in int8 (64
bit integer) in
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:44:21 -0700, Steve Wampler said:
> Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
> >
> > >However, I also use Postgres (7.0.2) throughout this
> > >application and it seems cleaner to me to keep the current
> > >id value in a table and just use postgres to provide access
> > >(with a tri
Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
>
> >However, I also use Postgres (7.0.2) throughout this
> >application and it seems cleaner to me to keep the current
> >id value in a table and just use postgres to provide access
> >(with a trigger function to increment the id on access).
>
> Why not a sequence?
Can
>However, I also use Postgres (7.0.2) throughout this
>application and it seems cleaner to me to keep the current
>id value in a table and just use postgres to provide access
>(with a trigger function to increment the id on access).
Why not a sequence?
>Is this reasonable? Is it fast? (I need
Hi,
I have a distributed application that needs unique 64-bit
"id" values. The current implementation keeps the current
value for this id in a file on one system and uses
a process to provide access to this file via CORBA.
However, I also use Postgres (7.0.2) throughout this
application and it
Michael Teter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps there's some issue with the shared memory not
> being freed quickly enough by the kernel?
Never heard of that before. There is an issue with time delays
on release of port addresses --- sometimes you may get a failure
to bind() to a port addre
I'm not sure if this is related, and unfortunately I
don't have the specific error in front of me, but on
occasion when I restart postgresql, using
$ /etc/rc.d/init.d/postgresql restart
I'll see the shutdown message, then I'll see a shared
memory creation error, which I think looked similar to
t
17 matches
Mail list logo
