On 7/30/2012 5:56 AM, Boris Folgmann wrote:
Hi,
hubert depesz lubaczewski schrieb/wrote:
generally - order by datname is understood as "order by *variable
datname*". - which is null.
It's clear that it's a shadowing problem. But it's not a "FOR IN EXECUTE"
where a variable makes sense. I mean
On 3/28/2011 8:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck writes:
I somehow fail to see how this complete reversal of who does what and
affecting code in entirely different parts of the system will qualify
for patching back releases.
I don't think any of the proposals make sense for back-pat
On 3/28/2011 4:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Christopher Browne writes:
- Grab timestamp
- Grab exclusive lock
- Process [Some number of pages]
- Check time.
- If [# of ms] have passed then check to see if anyone else has a lock
O/S on the table.
- Commit& give up the lock for a bit if they
On 10/12/2005 11:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
It isn't so much the alphabetical order, since there is only one
trigger, but the concept that we now group all the _before_ triggers
before the _after_ triggers.
But we've always done that. Has the example ever been c
On 7/8/2005 12:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Mark Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think the issue is that a single update to the main table causes a
whole bunch of updates to the toast table. So in my case (with the
vacuum output attached previously), a thousand updates to the main table
entails
On 10/26/2004 6:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I believe Slony always needs threading, it just can be used even if the
OS doesn't fully support all thread-safe functions, so on 8.0 you use
--thread_safety_force. Jan, is that correct?
Yes.
Slony allways uses pthreads and therefore it requires that on
On 10/23/2004 10:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 10/22/2004 3:30 PM, Ed L. wrote:
Clean build of pgsql 7.4.5 on HPUX B.11.23 on ia64 with
--enable-thread-safety fails ... :(
Unfortunately that doesn't mean that the switch is required to cause
libp
On 10/22/2004 3:30 PM, Ed L. wrote:
Clean build of pgsql 7.4.5 on HPUX B.11.23 on ia64 with
--enable-thread-safety fails ... :(
$uname -a
HP-UX ... B.11.23 U ia64 0144848471 unlimited-user license
$cd postgresql-7.4.5
$./configure --enable-thread-safety --without-readline --without-zlib
...
che
Sean Chittenden wrote:
I'v find out that this error occurs in:
dependency.c file
2004-04-26 11:09:34 ERROR: dependency.c 1621: cache lookup of
relation
149064743 failed
2004-04-26 11:09:34 ERROR: Relation "tmp_table1" does not exist
2004-04-26 11:09:34 ERROR: Relation "tmp_table1" does not exi
Sean Chittenden wrote:
I'v find out that this error occurs in:
dependency.c file
2004-04-26 11:09:34 ERROR: dependency.c 1621: cache lookup of relation
149064743 failed
2004-04-26 11:09:34 ERROR: Relation "tmp_table1" does not exist
2004-04-26 11:09:34 ERROR: Relation "tmp_table1" does not exis
The problem is that the deletes in the rules expand to a join according
to the view too. As soon as the first rule action has deleted the rows,
the second action cannot find anything anymore. We would have to
suppress the command counter increment between the rule actions to fix
this, but that wou
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dmitry Fomichev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am running 7.2b3 and trying to make something like this work (new
> > refcursor stuff):
>
> > CREATE TABLE t (c text);
>
> > CREATE FUNCTION errtest(refcursor, text) RETURNS refcursor AS '
> > BEGIN
> > OPEN $1 FOR SELECT
Bernie Huang wrote:
[Charset iso-8859-15 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the subject, but it is driving me crazy that I spend my entire
> morning searching for this little bug. =(
>
> Well, I found it.
>
> I have a field using array (eg; col1 text[]) in Postgres, and it's
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> There are at least two bugs here: the immediate cause of the crash
> is lack of a check for heap_openr() failure in the RI trigger code,
Exactly where is that check missing (if it still is)?
> but a larger question is why the system let you drop a table that
> is the targ
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >> but a larger question is why the system let you drop a table that
> >> is the target of a referential integrity check (which I assume is
> >> what you did to get into this state).
>
> > For me too.
>
> What about renaming as opposed to dropping? Since the triggers are s
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > while (HeapTupleIsValid(lTuple = heap_getnext(sRel, 0)))
> > + {
> > heap_delete(lRel, &lTuple->t_self, NULL);
> > + if (RelationGetForm(lRel)->relhasindex)
> > + {
> > + Relationide
e function manager redesign to go
for SETUID triggers and functions.
Jan
--
#==#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#= [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) #
17 matches
Mail list logo
