Re: [BUGS] SELECT FOR UPDATE and LIMIT 1 behave oddly

2005-04-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
I have documented the possible problem with LIMIT and FOR UPDATE. I also remove the mention that FOR UPDATE can appear before LIMIT for pre-7.3 compatibility. Patch applied to CVS HEAD only. --- Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, N

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1611: reading a date-field by "ResultSet.getTimestamp()"

2005-04-21 Thread Oliver Jowett
Ingolf Knopf wrote: > The following bug has been logged online: > > Bug reference: 1611 > Logged by: Ingolf Knopf > Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PostgreSQL version: 8.0.1 > Operating system: JDBC > Description:reading a date-field by "ResultSet.getTimestamp()" >

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1610: rewrite rule and sequence

2005-04-21 Thread Richard Huxton
Olleg Samoylov wrote: The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1610 Logged by: Olleg Samoylov Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 7.4.7 Operating system: Linux debian-amd64 Description:rewrite rule and sequence Details: Rule on view ca

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1609: Bug in interval datatype for 64 Bit timestamps

2005-04-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Oliver Siegmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thursday 21 April 2005 15:57, Tom Lane wrote: > >> If it is only the float case, some imprecision is to be expected. > > > So everything is okay? > > Well, it's not necessarily *wrong*, but maybe we could improve it. > The code c

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1609: Bug in interval datatype for 64 Bit timestamps

2005-04-21 Thread Tom Lane
Oliver Siegmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 21 April 2005 15:57, Tom Lane wrote: >> If it is only the float case, some imprecision is to be expected. > So everything is okay? Well, it's not necessarily *wrong*, but maybe we could improve it. The code currently assumes it can print 10

[BUGS] BUG #1612: Problem with PGAPI_SetPos

2005-04-21 Thread Marc Soleda
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1612 Logged by: Marc Soleda Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.0.1 Operating system: Win XP SP2 Description:Problem with PGAPI_SetPos Details: Environment: WinXP SP2/Visual C++ 6/MFC

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1609: Bug in interval datatype for 64 Bit timestamps

2005-04-21 Thread Tom Lane
Oliver Siegmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It removed the bug, but also added a new one (hopefully only one ;-)) I don't think it's a new bug, seeing that I didn't change the code for the ISO case. I see the imprecise result only in the non-integer-datetime case; is it acting differently for yo

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1609: Bug in interval datatype for 64 Bit timestamps

2005-04-21 Thread Oliver Siegmar
> I've applied this patch. It removed the bug, but also added a new one (hopefully only one ;-)) ...now with ISO DateStyle - select '2005 years 4 mons 20 days 15 hours 57 mins 12.1 secs ago'::interval; Before your patch: interval ---

[BUGS] BUG #1611: reading a date-field by "ResultSet.getTimestamp()" method analized dayligth flag

2005-04-21 Thread Ingolf Knopf
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1611 Logged by: Ingolf Knopf Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.0.1 Operating system: JDBC Description:reading a date-field by "ResultSet.getTimestamp()" method analized dayligth flag Details

[BUGS] BUG #1610: rewrite rule and sequence

2005-04-21 Thread Olleg Samoylov
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1610 Logged by: Olleg Samoylov Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 7.4.7 Operating system: Linux debian-amd64 Description:rewrite rule and sequence Details: Rule on view can't insert in table