> On 03 Jan 2015, at 23:14, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>> Well, that’s embarrassing, it’s only a few weeks since I learned this and
>> I’m already attributing the theory to the wrong database deity! That’s
>> Codd-relationality, of course. Not Boyce.
>
> The theory got me intrigued. google
> (http:
A supporting view works OK.
-
CREATE VIEW api2users AS SELECT * from mailusers;
CREATE or replace RULE remove_user AS ON DELETE TO api2users do instead
(update mailboxes set username=null where username=old.username and
domain=old.domain; delete from mailusers where usern
> On 03 Jan 2015, at 18:05, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
> W dniu 03.01.2015 o 16:48, Alban Hertroys pisze:
>>> On 03 Jan 2015, at 15:20, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>>>
> [-]
>>> Yes. This is precisely the "semantics" I'm trying to put into the schema:
>>> after a username is "releas
> On 03 Jan 2015, at 14:11, Alban Hertroys wrote:
>
> On 02 Jan 2015, at 13:31, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>> Would it violate SQL standard (signifficantly), if an "on delete set null"
>> action just ignored all the FK columns that have a "NOT NULL" constraint set?
>
> As I understand it, this is p
On 01/03/2015 09:05 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
W dniu 03.01.2015 o 16:48, Alban Hertroys pisze:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 15:20, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
[-]
Yes. This is precisely the "semantics" I'm trying to put into the
schema: after a username is "released" from service, all
W dniu 03.01.2015 o 16:48, Alban Hertroys pisze:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 15:20, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
[-]
Yes. This is precisely the "semantics" I'm trying to put into the schema: after a username is
"released" from service, all it's messages become "from unknown user"
I'm maintaining async replication (streaming) between four database
servers arranged on 2 x 2.
How to query current segments allocation relative to "Wal keep
segments" in each master server?
I want to add this query to Postbix in order to monitor if the "wal keep
segments" parameter is too shor
> On 03 Jan 2015, at 15:20, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>
> W dniu 03.01.2015 o 14:11, Alban Hertroys pisze:
> [--]
>> You assumed a functional dependency between username and domain, while those
>> fields actually describe independent entities that don’t necessarily go
>> together as
At the end, I've chosen to use the following:
trickle -u 500 -d 500 rsync --progress --partial -az ${PGDATA}/*
r...@xxx.bb.com:/var/lib/pgsql/repl-9.3/data/ --exclude
postmaster.pid --exclude postgresql.conf --exclude pg_hba.conf --exclude
pg_log
and it worked really well. This way I've
W dniu 03.01.2015 o 16:07, Adrian Klaver pisze:
On 01/03/2015 12:49 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
[-]
With TRIGGER alone (i.e. without "documenting FK"), one will have to
analize the body of an "ever growing" function. Which at certain point
would become too much of an effort
On 01/03/2015 12:49 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
W dniu 02.01.2015 o 20:37, Adrian Klaver pisze:
On 01/02/2015 08:55 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
[--]
Is there a way to forcebly push the "old.username=null, throughout the
"on-update" FK chains into the all dependent tables, before co
W dniu 03.01.2015 o 14:11, Alban Hertroys pisze:
[--]
You assumed a functional dependency between username and domain, while those
fields actually describe independent entities that don’t necessarily go
together as you found out. Hence you need to normalise further.
For exampl
On 02 Jan 2015, at 13:31, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Rewriting my mail-hub I fell into the following problem:
> 1. I have a table with mailmessages, which has an FK to a table of hub users.
> 2. I'd like to retain the content of message repository (with it's domain key
> not cleared),
W dniu 02.01.2015 o 20:37, Adrian Klaver pisze:
On 01/02/2015 08:55 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
[--]
Is there a way to forcebly push the "old.username=null, throughout the
"on-update" FK chains into the all dependent tables, before constraints
are checked for DELETE operation? I
14 matches
Mail list logo
