Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("scott.marlowe") would
write:
> Postgresql is really not suited to embedded applications.
Counterpoint: People tend to think about "embedded" in one of two
ways:
1. Applications using PICs and memory devices with _really_ limited
V i s h a l Kashyap @ [Sai Hertz And Control Systems] wrote:
Dear Bill Moran ,
I know the correct solution is to use the same version to develop
on that I'm using to test. So I'm going to downgrade my version
to 7.3.4 for now ... but this doesn't solve my biggest problem:
getting the FOR loop to
Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some of the plpgsql functions I've created work fine on 7.4, but
> fail on 7.3.4. Specifically, when I use a "FOR var IN select LOOP"
> loop with a LONG select statement, it works fine on 7.4, but
> bonks with "missing .. at end of SQL expression" in 7.3.4
Dear Bill Moran ,
I know the correct solution is to use the same version to develop
on that I'm using to test. So I'm going to downgrade my version
to 7.3.4 for now ... but this doesn't solve my biggest problem:
getting the FOR loop to work. It appears from the error that
the parser is getting c
I got it to work by using the form:
ALTER TABLE tablename DROP CONSTRAINT constraint name;
No reference to FOREIGN KEY, just use the constraint name.
On Friday 20 February 2004 08:04 am, tibor wrote:
> I forgot to mention that I have tried numerous variations.
> The one quoted in the original mail
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "BARTKO Zoltan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > caller() is the function I am looking for.
>
> The closest thing you will find is SESSION_USER.
I think you can have to have a trigger that compared session_user with the
value of the column in OLD and blocked
Have you tested it with regular pg_connects instead of pg_pconnect? while
many people expect pconnects to be faster, often, when they result in the
database having lots of open idle connections, they actually make the
system slower than just using plain connects.
You might want to look into s
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Tibor wrote:
> I am using PostgreSQL 7.4.1 (only through psql)
> I know, that the command
>
> ALTER TABLE OFFICES
> DROP PRIMARY KEY (CITY);
>
> and its foreign key equivalent:
>
> ALTER TABLE SALESREPS
> DROP CONSTRAINT
> FOREIGN KEY (REP_OFFICE)
> REFER
Maybe, but it doesn't work in some common cases apparently, I just
don't have anything setup on my machine to test everything out. I don't
even know which version you're running.
Like I said, it's needs a lot of TLC.
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:37:55PM +0100, zhicheng wang wrote:
> hi,
> i can see
I was wondering what you'd do if you wanted to store a
timestamp value that's outside of that data type's
bounds (4713 BC - AD 5874897)?
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
hi,
i can see the file 1259 is there and the db apparently
working normal and can be started/stopped OK.
if your tool cannot work on this set of db, does it
mean that the db is problematic? i am realy worried.
thanks in advance for advice.
cheng
--- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Terry Lee Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would this problem exist if zip were defined as varchar with no specific
> length defined? Is there a difference between varchar and text, at least in
> the context of this discussion?
In 7.4 there is not, but in prior releases there was.
Question:
Would this problem exist if zip were defined as varchar with no specific
length defined? Is there a difference between varchar and text, at least in
the context of this discussion?
Thanks...
On Saturday 05 June 2004 12:36 am, Tom Lane saith:
> David Boone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"BARTKO Zoltan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> caller() is the function I am looking for.
The closest thing you will find is SESSION_USER.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free s
On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 12:35, Bambero wrote:
> Hi
>
> Like in the subject. I have few tables i relations with themselves.
> There are many users that may insert a rows. But i want that only owner
> can modify or delete a row.
>
> I found somwhere an information that can use here LOCK, but I don't
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 18:35:29 +0200,
Bambero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
Like in the subject. I have few tables i relations with themselves.
There are many users that may insert a rows. But i want that only owner
can modify or delete a row.
I found somwhere an inform
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 18:35:29 +0200,
Bambero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Like in the subject. I have few tables i relations with themselves.
> There are many users that may insert a rows. But i want that only owner
> can modify or delete a row.
>
> I found somwhere an information tha
17 matches
Mail list logo
