Re: [BUGS] referential constraint bug

2002-03-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Patch applied. Thanks. --- Stephan Szabo wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Eric Lu wrote: > > > To whom it may concern: > > > > I found a constraint bug on PostgreSQL lastest version (7.2). > > Yes, it's still seeing som

Re: [BUGS] psql's \r does not reset parenthesis depth counter

2002-03-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > In current sources: > > regression=# create table tt1 (i2 int2, i4 int4, f8 float8, > regression(# \r > Query buffer reset (cleared). > regression(# select 2; > regression(# -- nothing happens because psql still wants a right paren > > Not sure if there is any other state that

[BUGS] Bug #622: jdbc driver exception: failed to get datetime field from a table

2002-03-18 Thread pgsql-bugs
Zhou Hui Qing ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 2 The lower the number the more severe it is. Short Description jdbc driver exception: failed to get datetime field from a table Long Description platform: SuSE 7.3 , Win2000 Server + cygwin ! When I using the example 'psql' (ja

Re: [BUGS] Bug #621: why postgreSQL stored databases in

2002-03-18 Thread Darcy Buskermolen
The numbers you see are OID'S, ie the OID of the relation. this is done to prevent name clashing and also makes fo easy lookups by the backend it self. At 12:18 PM 3/16/02 -0500, you wrote: >daizhong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 2 >The lower the number the more severe it

Re: [BUGS] Bug #612: PostgreSQL 7.2 does not build according to

2002-03-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
> Ignore my submission about sh-vs-bash in configure. Configure is > still broken (doesn't set HAVE_SNPRINTF_DECL properly), and the > resulting tree still doesn't build under IRIX with MIPSpro ($CC > accidentally got reset to gcc between tries). Shows us the config.log file. -- Peter Eisentra

Re: [BUGS] Bug #612: PostgreSQL 7.2 does not build according to documentation under IRIX w/ MIPSpro

2002-03-18 Thread Tom Lane
"Jonathan C. Patschke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's one warning that really bothered me, though. I don't know the > code well-enough to make this call, but I almost have to agree with the > compiler: Hmm ... it's correct, but my is it ugly. Someone trying to be too cute. Will change it