Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec

2002-03-19 Thread Dave Cramer
I noticed a message asking if this scenario was consistent with the other reports, and yes it is. We have seen this occuring on our system with versions as old as 7.0. Glad to see someone has finally nailed this one. Dave ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] Bug #926: if old postgresql.jar in CLASSPATH,

2003-08-17 Thread Dave Cramer
eanly > >> > > > > -- > > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 > > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road > > + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania > > 19073 > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > -- Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] Bug #886: jdbc "update row" can mess up other

2003-11-03 Thread Dave Cramer
Patch Applied, Thanks, Dave On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 04:45, Kris Jurka wrote: > Half of this bug was fixed at some point, but an exception is still thrown > when calling rs.afterLast() and then rs.previous(). Attached is a > regression test addition and the appropriate fix. Sorry for the extreme >

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] JDBC getImortedKeys() getExportedKeys()

2003-11-03 Thread Dave Cramer
Patch Applied, Thanks, Dave On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 05:25, Kris Jurka wrote: > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Richard Froud wrote: > > > Please enter a FULL description of your problem: > > > > When reading database metadata for foreign keys using the JDBC >

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #1026: org.apache.commons.dbcp.DbcpException:

2003-12-24 Thread Dave Cramer
Tammy, are you building the jar from source? if so can you try running ant test ? also see my comments below Dave On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 09:32, Tammy Jones wrote: > > Kris Jurka wrote: > > > PostgreSQL version: 7.3.4 > > > > > > Description:org.apache.commons.dbcp.DbcpException: The con

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #1026: org.apache.commons.dbcp.DbcpException:

2003-12-24 Thread Dave Cramer
> PGPORT=5432 > > ·Start the database service: > > [postgres]/bin/postmaster –o "-i" -D /usr/local/pgsql/data > logfile > 2>&1 & > > > DSpace Installation > ·Create a DSpace user and a group of the same name, containing > t

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #2060: Issue with Data base connection

2005-11-23 Thread Dave Cramer
It's interesting to note that *everyone* else using the JDBC driver doesn't have this problem ? Dave On 23-Nov-05, at 2:44 PM, Kris Jurka wrote: kalisetty manideep wrote: [Backend reports "too many open connections"] > But I am 100% sure that its not the issue with the code. Do you know an

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #7766: Running a DML statement that affects more than 4 billion rows results in an exception

2012-12-21 Thread Dave Cramer
Thanks Tom. So an unsigned long won't fit inside a java long either, but hopefully it will never be necessary. That would be a huge number of changes. Dave Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: &

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #7766: Running a DML statement that affects more than 4 billion rows results in an exception

2013-01-11 Thread Dave Cramer
Ok, this is much more difficult than I thought. Turns out that there are at least two interfaces that expect an int not a long. BatchUpdateException executeBatch I'm thinking the only option here is to report INT_MAX as opposed to failing. Thoughts ? Dave Dave Cramer dave.cram

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #7766: Running a DML statement that affects more than 4 billion rows results in an exception

2013-01-11 Thread Dave Cramer
Yes, that seems like a much better approach. I'm guessing SUCCESS_NO_INFO is < 0 and an int. I can't wait for the error reports (arguments) Dave Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Stefan Reiser wrote: > One t

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #7766: Running a DML statement that affects more than 4 billion rows results in an exception

2013-01-11 Thread Dave Cramer
Ok, I've pushed this fix into master On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Dave Cramer wrote: > SUCCESS_NO_INFO Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #7766: Running a DML statement that affects more than 4 billion rows results in an exception

2013-01-11 Thread Dave Cramer
Good points to both. Thank you both for reviewing. Dave Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Stefan Reiser wrote: > Kris Jurka schrieb: > > >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Dave Cramer wrote: >> >> Ok, I

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #7766: Running a DML statement that affects more than 4 billion rows results in an exception

2013-01-12 Thread Dave Cramer
Peter, Can you be more specific about your concerns ? Dave Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Péter Kovács wrote: > And what about > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/sql/Statement.html#getUpdateCount()? >

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #7766: Running a DML statement that affects more than 4 billion rows results in an exception

2013-01-12 Thread Dave Cramer
Well since it returns an int and it's impossible to return > 2^32 in an int then we will be returning Statement.SUCCESS_NO_INFO Dave Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Péter Kovács wrote: > I mean what value this

Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] BUG #7766: Running a DML statement that affects more than 4 billion rows results in an exception

2013-01-12 Thread Dave Cramer
Well my bet is the actual value of Statement.SUCCESS_NO_INFO is negative. My understanding of the code is that it will not throw the exception unless there is a real parse error. Dave Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Péter