Hello Ed,
On 24-Apr-00 17:10:21, you wrote:
>Manuel Lemos wrote:
>>
>> >Plus if you get a warning/error, Postgresql _requires_ you to rollback,
>> >whereas many other databases don't.
>>
>> That's what Metabase expects. When there is an error, you should rollback
>> before exiting a transactio
Today, in a message to pgsql-general, David Boerwinkle wrote:
>
> it seems like this is something that ought to be handled
> programmatically. That is, query the table to see if the row exists,
> then decide what you are going to do (insert or update) based on the
> results of your query.
It ce
Just to give everyone here a head's up as to what's coming: The developers
have long known that the size limit on tuple storage (particularly as it
affects the 'text' type) needs to go away, and that the existing large
objects (lo) are less than ideal as a work around. Jan Wieck has done
the inita
Ed Loehr wrote:
>
> Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Previously I wanted to ensure that I am inserting something unique into a
> > table, the answer was to create a unique index on the relevant columns.
> >
> > But what if I don't want to get an error which would force a rollback? Say
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi Lincoln,
>
> I'm not sure I'm understanding your question, but it seems like this is
> something that
> ought to be handled programmatically. That is, query the table to see if
> the row exists,
> then decide what you are going to do (insert or update) based on t
So then, I realize this may be a stupid question, is there no other way,
aside from upgrading, to force referential integrity constraints to
trigger automatically?
And thanks for the quick response!
John Clayton
Knowledge Manager
Site Builder
First Light Communications
55 John St. 8th Floor
N
I'm rather new to Postgresql, but hope someone here can help me out. Even
though I am specifying foreign and primary keys in my tables as I create
them, the foreign key options, such as CASCADE and NO ACTION, don't seem to
be working. I am allowed to change primary keys with no effect on the
for
Hi Lincoln,
I'm not sure I'm understanding your question, but it seems like this is
something that
ought to be handled programmatically. That is, query the table to see if
the row exists,
then decide what you are going to do (insert or update) based on the results
of your
query.
Am I completely
Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Previously I wanted to ensure that I am inserting something unique into a
> table, the answer was to create a unique index on the relevant columns.
>
> But what if I don't want to get an error which would force a rollback? Say
> I want to insert something if it d
>
> > When we are sure all platforms support 64-bit int's, we will move in
> > that direction.
>
> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but couldn't you fairly easily make it
> an option at compile time? To use either 32 or 64 bit OID's.
> (And, less importantly, for sequences)
Well, we could bu
> When we are sure all platforms support 64-bit int's, we will move in
> that direction.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but couldn't you fairly easily make it
an option at compile time? To use either 32 or 64 bit OID's.
(And, less importantly, for sequences)
- Andrew
11 matches
Mail list logo
