Hi Philip,
The version 7.1 series of PostgreSQL doesn't have the 8k limitation,
it's now limited to a maximum of 1GB per field. Version 7.1.3 is the
latest release (the recommended and most stable version), and we'll soon
be beginning beta testing of the 7.2 series (don't use this for
production
> Does that leave Red Hat the main (only?) commercial supporter of PostgreSQL?
Heh,
Hardly, there is PGSQL, Inc. and Command Prompt, Inc. (my company). We
have been around for almost four years and have provided custom
development and support for PostgreSQL (starting with Postgres95)
since that
For anyone who was watching me flail with JDBC and UNICODE...
I finally gave up on unicode-- I switched the database encoding to
MULE_INTERNAL and JDBC is handling everything I can throw at it (we'll just
have to wait and see if my users manage to enter some unsupported
characters). Thanks al
The 8k (well, BLCKSZ limit) has been eliminated for quite some time now..
-Mitch
- Original Message -
From: "Philip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 6:57 AM
Subject: [GENERAL] Does Postgresql 7.1.x Still Have 8K Maximum Field Size?
> Hello
> The question: Is it possible to have a text field greater than 8k but only using
>RPMs -- not compiling and/or chaining via a separate table (breaking something into
>8k chunks)? If so, how?
Native in 7.1.x
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: D
Hello all.
I will be creating one of my first web applications and would like to use Postgresql
as the database on a Red Hat 6.2 or 7.1 system with Apache and either ColdFusion or
PHP.
Anyway, the application will have a text field where employees can update their
progress on assigned tasks.
Hi all,
Sorry for following up to my own mail. I went over the function again
and realized I was exceeding the size I had allocated for the query
string. Never realised I was exceeding the varchar(1000) that I had
declared as the string.
Apologies for my last follow-up to my query, I sent it fro
