Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
>
> ...It is NOT required that the outcome be
> equivalent to the result that would be observed by running the
> transactions in a particular order, such as in the order they were
> actually started. The outcome is only required to be equivalent to some
> (arbitrary) or
Sorry to ask this as I'm sure it's passed throught here but I'm also sure
I just looked at the messages briefly and then deleted them becuase I
didn't think I'd ever need the information.
I'm working on a program that will run on a MS Windows platform and I
want it to use a database (PostreSQL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> ...the snapshot is taken from the first DML statement...
That explains it. I missed that in the docs, and was mislead by the
SERIALIZABLE doc sections.
Regards,
Ed Loehr
Carsten Huettl schrieb:
>
> Hello,
>
> After I altered a table in my database I am not able to connect the
> Database with the postgresql-odbc-driver (v.6.40.00.09)
> What I get is:
> ODBC--call failed.
> The Access-Table only shows col-names but nothing else.
>
> It is a RH6.1Linux with Postgr
> Ok so I'm biased to how MySQL does it (it's simple and has a good chance of
> working well). Yes it shifts a lot to the application. But if people have
> to do things like do their multiple select for updates in the right order
> (to prevent deadlocks), they might as well start using something l
I am running a slackware 7 linux box (kernel 2.2.14 g++2.91.66) and i 've
installed the ver 7 beta 5. So i had the following problem
I suppose when you make a constraint statement for reference key theere
should be a check for the fields names , example:
create table tbl1 (p1 int2 primary key,p2
> Hi!
>
> how can I setup sequences to have the current-value reset in case
> of an Transaction rollback.
>
> My intension is to get an contignous numbering of the rows.
> Currently in case of an Rollback one number is skipped since
> the record itself is not inserted but the counter is not r
Title: RE: [GENERAL] sequences and Transactions
You can't. Sequences are not designed for continuity, they are designed for uniqueness. If you want to have a set of contiguous numbers, in ascending order, then you will probably have to write a trigger to insert the next value, which it has t
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> Hey folks,
>
> Been gettin' situated with 7.0 RC1 and I've come across a couple of places
> where small changes to the documentation would have helped. I'd like to
> feed this stuff back to the folks doin' the docs as part of my contribut
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Jim Mercer wrote:
>
> > - queries via localhost (unix domain sockets) should assume that the pg_user
> > is the same as the unix user running the process.
>
> There's no way for the server to determine the system user name of the
> other end of a d
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Jim Mercer wrote:
>
> > - queries via localhost (unix domain sockets) should assume that the pg_user
> > is the same as the unix user running the process.
>
> There's no way for the server to determine the system user n
At 11:03 AM 27-04-2000 +0300, Andras Balogh wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Thank You for your reply.
>BUT as i mentioned the date_time field is VARCHAR.
>So if i use:
>date >= '01/4/2000' and date < '01/5/2000'
>
>this won't compare the dates it will compare Strings.
>so '02/4/2000' will be GREATER than '01/5/200
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 4:46 PM
> To: Hiroshi Inoue
>
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> > PostgreSQL's SERIALIZABLE isolation level would allow both inserts.
> > READ COMMITED isolation level wo
Hi,
Thank You for your reply.
BUT as i mentioned the date_time field is VARCHAR.
So if i use:
date >= '01/4/2000' and date < '01/5/2000'
this won't compare the dates it will compare Strings.
so '02/4/2000' will be GREATER than '01/5/2000'.
That is why i need a DATE TYPE for my field that can be
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> PostgreSQL's SERIALIZABLE isolation level would allow both inserts.
> READ COMMITED isolation level wouldn't allow A's inserts.
>
> As I mentioned in another posting,PostgreSQL's SERIALIZABLE
> isolation level isn't completely serializable and it's sam
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Jim Mercer wrote:
> - queries via localhost (unix domain sockets) should assume that the pg_user
> is the same as the unix user running the process.
There's no way for the server to determine the system user name of the
other end of a domain socket; at least no one has imple
Patches to [EMAIL PROTECTED], discussion at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.
Of course the documentation is more or less frozen but feel free to
contribute anyway for the next release.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Michael S. Kelly wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> Been gettin' situated with 7.0 RC1 and I've come acro
In a message to and Hiroshi Inoue pgsql-general, Ed Loehr wrote:
>
> -- Within transaction A --
> BEGIN;
> SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
>
> -- Within transaction B --
> BEGIN;
> SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
> INSER
Hi!
how can I setup sequences to have the current-value reset in case
of an Transaction rollback.
My intension is to get an contignous numbering of the rows.
Currently in case of an Rollback one number is skipped since
the record itself is not inserted but the counter is not reset.
Elmar
19 matches
Mail list logo
