Re: [SQL] sorry, now with subject... trigger & nextval(seq)

2010-06-01 Thread Daniel Migowski
Am 21.05.2010 03:46, schrieb Adrian Klaver: You know serial is just a shortcut for: pid int NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('seq') I think you will find Access will place nice if you use the long form to define your autoincrement. Not true. Serial will also add an internal dependency between the

Re: [SQL] sorry, now with subject... trigger & nextval(seq)

2010-05-21 Thread tlange
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:52 PM, wrote: > >> I'm new to triggers in PostgreSQL. I have to create a trigger on insert >> to >> increment a sequence to overcome MS-Access' limitation in acknowledging >> serial "datatype". > > Uh? Access doesn't need to acknowledge the serial datatype. > At-least

[Fwd: Re: [SQL] sorry, now with subject... trigger & nextval(seq)]

2010-05-21 Thread tlange
> On Thursday 20 May 2010 5:53:51 pm tla...@gwdg.de wrote: >> I'm new to triggers in PostgreSQL. I have to create a trigger on insert >> to >> increment a sequence to overcome MS-Access' limitation in acknowledging >> serial "datatype". >> > > You know serial is just a shortcut for: > > pid int NOT

Re: [SQL] sorry, now with subject... trigger & nextval(seq)

2010-05-20 Thread Adrian Klaver
On Thursday 20 May 2010 5:53:51 pm tla...@gwdg.de wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm new to triggers in PostgreSQL. I have to create a trigger on insert to > increment a sequence to overcome MS-Access' limitation in acknowledging > serial "datatype". > > Could anyone put me on right track? I was looking t

Re: [SQL] Sorry I see my first question did not get posted (maybe

2005-01-26 Thread Richard Huxton
Joel Fradkin wrote: Basically the question was why would a view use an indexed search on one result set but a seq search on a larger result set. Same view only difference is how many rows are returned. The large result set was doing a seq search and did not return after several minutes. The same sq

Re: [SQL] Sorry too many conecctions

2004-07-21 Thread Gregory S. Williamson
In the root directory in which postgres stores the data is a file: postgresql.conf Edit the file with a text editor (vi / ed / etc.) and change : max_connections = ### to max_connections = 1000 (or more since other applications or a DBA may need to connect as well) and also change shared_bu

Re: [SQL] Sorry, to many clients already

2003-01-07 Thread Tambet Matiisen
> > When I'm trying to connect I have this error message: > > Something unusual has occured to cause the driver to > fail.Please report this > exception: java.sql.SQLException: Sorry, to many clients already. > I also met this error yesterday. Default PostgreSQL limit for incoming connections

Re: [SQL] Sorry, to many clients already

2003-01-06 Thread Robert Treat
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 09:12, cristi wrote: > When I'm trying to connect I have this error message: > > Something unusual has occured to cause the driver to fail.Please report this > exception: java.sql.SQLException: Sorry, to many clients already. > > > What should I do? > I might suggest post

Re: datatype matrix (was: Re: [SQL] Sorry..)

2002-07-17 Thread Karel Zak
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 12:37:04PM -0500, Kevin Brannen wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > Christopher, > > > > > >>In the bad old days when we couldn't distinguish explicit from implicit > >>cast functions, I was wary of adding new cast pathways. Too many > >>implicit casts and you have no type s

Re: datatype matrix (was: Re: [SQL] Sorry..)

2002-07-16 Thread Josh Berkus
Kevin, > In this vain, is there someplace in the docs that has a type conversion > table (matrix) that shows what datatype can be cast into what other > datatype (both implicitly and explicitly)? I haven't seen one and it > would be helpful for us newbies. I don't think it exists. Hey, ho

datatype matrix (was: Re: [SQL] Sorry..)

2002-07-16 Thread Kevin Brannen
Josh Berkus wrote: > Christopher, > > >>In the bad old days when we couldn't distinguish explicit from implicit >>cast functions, I was wary of adding new cast pathways. Too many >>implicit casts and you have no type system at all. But in 7.3 there >>should be no reason to object to an explici

Re: [SQL] Sorry..

2002-07-15 Thread Josh Berkus
Christopher, > In the bad old days when we couldn't distinguish explicit from implicit > cast functions, I was wary of adding new cast pathways. Too many > implicit casts and you have no type system at all. But in 7.3 there > should be no reason to object to an explicit-only cast from numeric

Re: [SQL] Sorry..

2002-07-14 Thread Tom Lane
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [ there's no cast from numeric to text ] Feel free to contribute one. In the bad old days when we couldn't distinguish explicit from implicit cast functions, I was wary of adding new cast pathways. Too many implicit casts and you have no t