I'm not sure what the supposed bug is...
> From: Alexei E Korneyev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[ reformated by PS]
create table t1 (num int4 PRIMARY KEY, name text);
create table t2 (ref int4 references t1 (num) NOT NULL, val text);
insert into t1 values (1
Martin Neimeier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 1
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
Error with union in sub-selects
Long Description
Version: PostgreSQL 7.0.2 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc 2.95.2
If i try to use unions in a subselect, pos
Hello,
some additional informations:
- if i execute the subselect alone, it works fine !.
- The same select statement works with sybase and oracle, so i think its a legal
statement.
- After reading in the sql2-standard, i have found nothing which restricts unions in
sub-selects.
(I don't want
Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it's not date_part() bug, it's to_date() bug:
> test=# select to_date('26.03.2000','dd.mm.')::timestamp;
> ?column?
>
> 2000-03-25 23:00:00+01
> ^^^
>! Bug !
> test=# select to_timestamp('2
>
> Looks to me like an off-by-one kind of problem in deciding which
> timezone applies to midnight of a transition day.
>
> regards, tom lane
Hmm ... really cool solution. You are right! I was sure that in the my
to_() code can't be bug :-))
Thanks.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> /usr/include/pgsql/os.h does not exist
Yeah, this is a recently-noticed defect in the RPM distribution.
A symlink was installed as a symlink, instead of as the referenced
file.
Until a new RPM can be issued, the simplest fix is to replace the
os.h symlink with the cor
[copied to list]
My understanding, which isn't based on my experience more than reading any
standards, is that a referential foriegn key field in a table can be either,
a value from the referenced table, or null.
Null kinda implies "n/a".
So order-lines on an order might reference a stock item
Yes, right now references constraints require update
permissions on the table being referenced in order
to grab row level locks on it with SELECT FOR UPDATE.
Stephan Szabo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Alexei E. Korneyev wrote:
> ==
Actually, this is what the spec defines. You're using match
unspecified, which means:
- If no was specified then, for each row R1 of the
referencing table, either at least one of the values of the
referencing columns in R1 shall be a null value, or the value of
each referencing colum
> Sample Code
> create table oops (date date);
>
> insert into oops (date) values (to_date('24.03.2000','dd.mm.'));
> insert into oops (date) values (to_date('25.03.2000','dd.mm.'));
> insert into oops (date) values (to_date('26.03.2000','dd.mm.'));
> insert into oops (date) values (t
> > it's not date_part() bug, it's to_date() bug:
> Looks to me like an off-by-one kind of problem in deciding which
> timezone applies to midnight of a transition day.
Probably a bit worse (but no problem to solve ;): you need to make sure
that you rotate the date type to the correct time z
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Looks to me like an off-by-one kind of problem in deciding which
>> timezone applies to midnight of a transition day.
> The date->timestamp conversion code gets this right, so you might want
> to look at that.
Au contraire: the cited examples appear
12 matches
Mail list logo
