Thank you very much!
I made several tests, and (with postgresql-8.4dev-arraydim.jdbc3.jar) it
worked.
Greetings,
Bjoern Weitzig
Kris Jurka wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, "Dr. Björn Weitzig" wrote:
>> I can't find any "modified JDBC driver", only the "JDBC extension"
>> postgis.jar (your link), whi
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4688
Logged by: Oleg
Email address: sero...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: last stable
Operating system: CentOS
Description:Bug in cache.
Details:
Demo sql:
ROLLBACK;
BEGIN;
CREATE TABLE bug_composite_type (
Oleg wrote:
CREATE CAST (tmp_table AS composite_ad_texts)
WITHOUT FUNCTION AS ASSIGNMENT;
"WITHOUT FUNCTION" can only be used when both types are binary
compatible. You might think that two composite types with the same
fields are, but they're not: we store the OID of the composite type i
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Oleg wrote:
>> CREATE CAST (tmp_table AS composite_ad_texts)
>> WITHOUT FUNCTION AS ASSIGNMENT;
> "WITHOUT FUNCTION" can only be used when both types are binary
> compatible. You might think that two composite types with the same
> fields are, but they're not: we st
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
Oleg wrote:
CREATE CAST (tmp_table AS composite_ad_texts)
WITHOUT FUNCTION AS ASSIGNMENT;
"WITHOUT FUNCTION" can only be used when both types are binary
compatible. You might think that two composite types with the same
fields are, but they're not
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Although this qualifies as pilot error (superusers are expected to know
>> what they're doing), should we attempt to prevent the case?
> We can't detect binary-incompatibility in general, so I presume you
> meant just for the case of composite type
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>> I believe the command has been like that for a long time, and this is
>> the first time someone managed to shoot one's foot.
>
> True. Maybe it's not worth the trouble.
IMHO, the consequences are far from being negl
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Although this qualifies as pilot error (superusers are expected to know
what they're doing), should we attempt to prevent the case?
We can't detect binary-incompatibility in general, so I presume you
meant just for the case of compo
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> If we go down that path, how far do we go? We also know that two enums
> are never binary-compatible, right? Composite type and a user-defined
> base type? Hardly, unless you're doing something very hacky...
> Disallowing binary casts when any composite types or enu
