On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think Tom's correct about what the right behavior would be if
>> composite types supported defaults, but they don't, never have, and
>> maybe never will. I had a previous argument about this with Tom, and
>> lost, though I am not sure that any
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think Tom's correct about what the right behavior would be if
> composite types supported defaults, but they don't, never have, and
> maybe never will. I had a previous argument about this with Tom, and
> lost, though I am not sure that any
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It is not a bug. The ALTER ADD ... DEFAULT ... form implies rewriting
>>> every existing tuple of the rowtype to insert a non-null value in the
>>> added column, an
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Merlin Moncure writes:
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mike Blackwell
>>> wrote:
alter table a add column even_more_stuff boolean not null default false;
>>
>>> aha! that's not
Not a bad idea. I'd need to convert existing data, but it'd be an excuse
to try out hstore. ^_^
Mike
* *
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:08, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > On a practical level, the error blocks nothing -- you can bypass it
> > tri
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On a practical level, the error blocks nothing -- you can bypass it
> trivially. It's just an annoyance that prevents things that users
> would like to be able to do with table row types. So I'd argue to
> remove the check, although I can
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mike Blackwell
>> wrote:
>>> alter table a add column even_more_stuff boolean not null default false;
>
>> aha! that's not what you posted last time. you appended 'not null
>> default f
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 07 17:31:32 -0300 2012:
> This probably could be done for rowtype columns as well, but nobody has
> collected the necessary round tuits. I think there was some fear of
> locking/deadlock issues, too.
It's probably easy to do if you require it to be ma
Merlin Moncure writes:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mike Blackwell
> wrote:
>> alter table a add column even_more_stuff boolean not null default false;
> aha! that's not what you posted last time. you appended 'not null
> default false'; which inexplicably breaks the ALTER.
> try this:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Mike Blackwell wrote:
> As a followup, the workaround fails if there is data in the source table due
> to the initial null value placed in the existing data rows.
>
> [wcs1459@aclnx-cisp01 ~]$ psql --port=5433 -e -f x
> begin;
> BEGIN
> create table a (
> id seria
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mike Blackwell wrote:
>
> works for me -- what version are you on?
>
> merlin
>
> --
>
> [wcs1459@aclnx-cisp01 ~]$ psql --version
> psql (PostgreSQL) 9.1.1
> contains support for command-line editing
>
>
> [wcs1459@aclnx-cisp01 ~]$ cat x
> create table a (
>
>
>
> works for me -- what version are you on?
>
> merlin
>
> --
>
> [wcs1459@aclnx-cisp01 ~]$ psql --version
> psql (PostgreSQL) 9.1.1
> contains support for command-line editing
>
>
> [wcs1459@aclnx-cisp01 ~]$ cat x
> create table a (
> id serial,
> stuff text,
> more_stuff text
> );
>
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Mike Blackwell wrote:
> Given a pair of tables:
>
> create table a (
> id serial,
> stuff text,
> more_stuff text
> );
>
> create table a_audit (
> id serial,
> old_record a,
> new_record a
> );
>
> How can one alter the structure of table a? Attemptin
Given a pair of tables:
create table a (
id serial,
stuff text,
more_stuff text
);
create table a_audit (
id serial,
old_record a,
new_record a
);
How can one alter the structure of table a? Attempting
ALTER TABLE a ADD COLUMN even_more_stuff text;
results in the message:
ERROR:
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 06:09, Prabu Subroto wrote:
> Dear Scott...
>
> My God so I can not use "alter table" to define a
> column with int data type?
Not define, REdefine. Right now, the version going into beta will let
you redefine columns from one type to another. Til then, you have to
mak
This is exactly what I need..
Thank you very much for your kindness, Doug.
Thank you...thank you...veryvery,,, much.
--- Doug McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Prabu Subroto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If I read your suggestion, that means...I have
> drop
> > the column "salesid" a
Prabu Subroto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I read your suggestion, that means...I have drop
> the column "salesid" and re-create the column
> "salesid". and it means, I will the data in the
> current "salesid" column.
>
> Do you have further suggestion?
You can do it "by hand" without droppin
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 05:09:33AM -0700, Prabu Subroto wrote:
> Dear Scott...
>
> My God so I can not use "alter table" to define a
> column with int data type?
eh? Sure you can:
alter table x add column y integer;
What's he's saying is that the "serial" shortcut isn't there and
proceeded
Dear Scott...
My God so I can not use "alter table" to define a
column with int data type?
Here is the detail condition:
I have created a table "sales". And I forgot to define
auto_increment for primary key "salesid" (int4). the
table has already contented the data.
I built an application wi
--snip--
Or is that CAST it on the wasy.
Richard
20 matches
Mail list logo
