Hi Tom,
this seems a serious bug:
testdb=>
testdb=> create table t1(a int, b text);
CREATE TABLE
testdb=> create table t2(a int, b text);
CREATE TABLE
testdb=> insert into t1 values(1,'pippo');
INSERT 7591667 1
testdb=> insert into t1 values(2,'pluto');
INSERT 7591668 1
testdb=> insert into t2 va
The output of the vacuum command on
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/sql-vacuum.html
shows the output of the 7.3.x version. I noticed while browsing the cvs that the output
has changed.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Troels Arvin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In Jim Melton and Alan Simon's "SQL:1999 - Understanding Relational
> Language Components" (ISBN 1-55860-456-1), they write that the following
> is to be interpreted as a TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE value:
>
> TIMESTAMP '2003-07-29 13:19:30.5+02:00
Hi,
I'm have the following query:
select count(*) from delivery where "creation_date" <= TIMESTAMP
'2003-04-01 00:00:00' and "creation_date" > TIMESTAMP '2003-03-01
00:00:00';
without any index the range query returns the correct result namely
272394, when i create an index on creation_date,
Mahlon Stacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Newer versions of TCL implement ByteArray objects which are
> the best fit for Postgresql Large Object functions.
How newer is "newer"? That is, what compatibility problems might we
create if we make this change?
regards, tom lan
