>> I need to enumerate the constraints on any given column in a table, so
>> I'm examining pg_constraint to get the relevant information. The
>> conkey array contains a list of constrained columns, and although I am
>> able to check conkey[1] for constraints on a single column, I would
>> like to
I need to enumerate the constraints on any given column in a table, so
I'm examining pg_constraint to get the relevant information. The
conkey array contains a list of constrained columns, and although I am
able to check conkey[1] for constraints on a single column, I would
like to properly handle
Tom Lane mentioned in this post that an empty query can be sent to the
server to determine whether the connection is still good:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-10/msg00643.php
Is a query of "" guaranteed to work as long as the connection is good?
What about ";" or " "?
Backgro
(Postgres 7.0.3, linux kernel 2.4.2, i386, red hat 7.1)
I'm trying to build rules to automatically populate several tables with
references to any new rows inserted into a primary key table. The primary
key is a sequence. Here's what's going on:
mydb=# create table foo (fooid serial primary
If I add ON UPDATE CASCADE to my foreign key definitions, how much will it
affect performance for queries that don't trigger the cascade?
Cheers,
Forest
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
On Thursday 29 March 2001 22:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Just looked in heapam.c - I can fix it in two hours.
> > The question is - should we do this now?
>
> This scares the hell out of me.
>
> I do NOT think we should be making quick-hack changes in fundamental
> system semantics at this point of th
On Tuesday 27 March 2001 15:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Forest Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > session1<< create function nextid( varchar(32)) returns int8 as '
> > session1<< select * from idseq where name = $1::text for update;
> > session1<&
t; commit;
session2>> COMMIT
session2<< select * from idseq;
session2>> name | id
session2>> --+
session2>> myid | 2
session2>> (1 row)
session1<< select * from idseq;
session1>> name | id
session1>> --+
ses
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:26:58 -0500 (EST), Michael Fork wrote:
>One other method is to setup up the foreign keys as ON DELETE RESTRICT,
>then outside of your transaction block issue a DELETE FROM address WHERE
>add_id = 1; If there are still records in the other tables referencing
>this record, i
gt;> arrange for it with custom trigger procedures, checking all
>> the five tables on DELETE or UPDATE on one of them.
Forest Wilkinson wrote:
>> > I have a database in which five separate tables may (or may not) reference
>> > any given row in a table of postal add
transaction. This is clearly
undesirable.
Isn't there some way to tell postgres *not* to roll back my transaction if
a particular DELETE fails due to referential integrity? Are there any
other options that might help me?
Regards,
Forest Wilkinson
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
true?
Forest Wilkinson
>> I'd like to create an index on a column whose type is NUMERIC(12,2).
>> There appears to be no default operator class for the numeric type.
>
>Uh, what version are you using? Works fine for me in 7.0.2.
Sorry; I hit send before adding that information. I'm using postgres
6.5.3 on i386 Red Ha
I'd like to create an index on a column whose type is NUMERIC(12,2).
There appears to be no default operator class for the numeric type. What
class should I use instead? My guess is that something like this might
work:
CREATE INDEX foo_idx on foo (bar int8_ops);
Will that work properly? Will
former behavior
would be dangerous, while the latter behavior would be desirable.
Thanks,
Forest Wilkinson
ng postgres 7.0.2 now, but I discovered this problem (and the
workaround) with 6.5.2 or 6.5.3.
>I'm up to my armpits in subselect-in-FROM right now, but will put this
>on my to-do list. Will look at it in a week or two if no one else has
>fixed it before then...
>
> regards, tom lane
Thanks, Tom. Please let me know when there's a fix.
I can provide more detailed C source code if you need it, but I think the
relevant parts of the code are expressed in this message.
Forest Wilkinson
; commit;
session1>> COMMIT
(session2 resumes)
session2>> nextid
session2>>
session2>> 0
session2>> (1 row)
What gives??? I expected the second call to nextid() to return 2!
session1<< select * from idseq;
session1>> name | id
session1>> ------+
session1>> myid | 1
session1>> (1 row)
session2<< select * from idseq;
session2>> name | id
session2>> --+
session2>> myid | 1
session2>> (1 row)
As you can see, my nextid() function is not synchronized the way I hoped.
I don't know why though. Can someone help?
Thanks,
Forest Wilkinson
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:32:50 +0200 (CEST), Karel Zak wrote:
>
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Forest Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> I have written a few Postgres extension functions in C, and want to modify
>> some of them to return an int8. However, I don't see any int8 definition
>>
I have written a few Postgres extension functions in C, and want to modify
some of them to return an int8. However, I don't see any int8 definition
in postgres.h. (I have the 7.0.2 RPMs installed.) How should I
accomplish this?
ble.
(In order for my_next_uid() to be useful, it must retrieve a new value
each time it is used.)
Is my understanding correct? What should I do about it? The postgresql
6.5.2 docs for CREATE FUNCTION don't tell me how to make my functions
non-cachable.
Regards,
Forest Wilkinson
I have become maintainer of a program that uses PostgreSQL 6.5.2 for
database functionality. It is littered with code blocks that do the
following:
1. SELECT * FROM some_table WHERE foo = bar FOR UPDATE;
2. -- Choose a new value for some_field, which might or might not
be based on its origina
22 matches
Mail list logo
