[BUGS] Why is abstime type deprecated?

2004-10-27 Thread Kilian Hagemann
Hi there, Firstly, I am new to PostgreSQL but installed it recently because of its many virtues for a project of mine. This is not a bug-report but rather a concern about the development course of postgresql (hope this is the right place to post this... please excuse me if it's not). I am busy

Re: [BUGS] Why is abstime type deprecated?

2004-10-27 Thread Tom Lane
Kilian Hagemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After long googling I found that abstime, as was still current in 6.x, would > do the trick for me. But the 7.x documentation says "You are discouraged from > using these types in new applications" and that "Any or all of these internal > types might

Re: [BUGS] Why is abstime type deprecated?

2004-10-27 Thread Kilian Hagemann
> > Because it will certainly break by 2038, when 32-bit time_t overflows. > > In practice, Unix systems will have to move to 64-bit time_t before > that, and we'll probably either remove abstime or make it an 8-byte type > as soon as that practice is common. Thanks for that. By that time my stora

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1297: Postgres after 7.3.5 does not works on initdb stage

2004-10-27 Thread Tom Lane
"PostgreSQL Bugs List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Description:Postgres after 7.3.5 does not works on initdb stage What locale settings are you using? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get o

Re: [BUGS] Strange behavior in psql

2004-10-27 Thread Dave Wilde
Tom Lane wrote: Dave Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I have been having problems with psql under linux lately and this problem has followed me from 7.4.4 - 7.4.6, but it started sometime after I upgraded to 7.4.4. It sounds to me like the weirdness is in or around libreadline. Did you update re

Re: [BUGS] Strange behavior in psql

2004-10-27 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I thought so too, so I looked at ldd for psql and it doesn't link to > readline, it links to libedit, here's the output. Libedit and readline > are both at their latest versions, and yes it works great with -n. Hmm. Maybe latest libedit is broken? (T

[BUGS] pgsql 8.0 beta 4 - Win32 psql client problem

2004-10-27 Thread John Browne
-- Originally posted to pgsql-general, but no replies -- I was attempting to set up my psql client on the Win32 version of postgres 8.0 beta 4 to be able to use an external editor. I set the environment variable in windows like so: PSQL_EDITOR="c:\progra~1\Textpa~1\Textpad.exe" which does appea

Re: [BUGS] Why is abstime type deprecated?

2004-10-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Kilian Hagemann wrote: > > > > Because it will certainly break by 2038, when 32-bit time_t overflows. > > > > In practice, Unix systems will have to move to 64-bit time_t before > > that, and we'll probably either remove abstime or make it an 8-byte type > > as soon as that practice is common. > >

[BUGS] solaris non gcc compiler debug options

2004-10-27 Thread Kris Jurka
Compiling on solaris with a non gcc compiler does not correctly enable debugging when --enable-debug is specified. src/template/solaris is specifying CFLAGS="-O -v" and -O overrides the -g that --enable-debug adds. Kris Jurka ---(end of broadcast)-

[BUGS] Usability or Data Bug in SERIAL column declarations

2004-10-27 Thread elein
This was tested in 7.4. If you have a table where you declare a column to be SERIAL, the data type of that column will be set to type integer (int4). If you have a table where you declare a column to be SERIAL8, the data type of that column will be set to type bigint (int8). In both cases sequ

Re: [BUGS] Usability or Data Bug in SERIAL column declarations

2004-10-27 Thread Tom Lane
elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In both cases sequences are created as int8 values with > a maximum of 9223372036854775807. > BUG: The assignment of the table containing the int4 column > will overflow at 2147483648 (max integer size). I don't think this is really a problem. You are going t

Re: [BUGS] Usability or Data Bug in SERIAL column declarations

2004-10-27 Thread elein
But shouldn't it wrap when it hits the max? Assuming wrapping is an OK behavior, not setting a proper max will eliminate that option for overflow. --elein On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 08:30:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In both cases sequences are created as int8

Re: [BUGS] Usability or Data Bug in SERIAL column declarations

2004-10-27 Thread Tom Lane
elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But shouldn't it wrap when it hits the max? No, absolutely not. The default sequence behavior is NO CYCLE, meaning you'll start getting errors from nextval() when you reach the max. I don't see a lot of difference between getting that error and getting an int8-

Re: [BUGS] PREPARE(d) statements and modifying columns

2004-10-27 Thread Kris Jurka
I'd like to re-raise this bug I reported some time ago and got no response on. Generally any plain sql commands shouldn't crash the backend and I don't like a query reporting incorrect results. On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Kris Jurka wrote: > There are problems when a prepared statement's underlying