Hi.
I have a foreign key as such:
ALTER TABLE child_table
ADD CONSTRAINT fk_child
FOREIGN KEY (stringid) REFERENCES parent_table (stringid) MATCH FULL
ON DELETE CASCADE ;
Questions:
1. Is "MATCH FULL" adding any value here? If the foreign key is just
on an "id" column, what purpose does it se
On 4 Dec 2011, at 11:19, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have a foreign key as such:
>
>
> ALTER TABLE child_table
> ADD CONSTRAINT fk_child
> FOREIGN KEY (stringid) REFERENCES parent_table (stringid) MATCH FULL
> ON DELETE CASCADE ;
>
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Is "MATCH FULL" adding any value
Hi.
I have deleted a row from a table. Confirmed by "SELECT". All
associated children tables don't have this key value either.
Yet, when I insert this row back again, the primary key index on this
table gives me a duplicate error.
As demonstrated below. PGSQL version is 9.0.5.
Is this common? I
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2011, at 11:19, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
>
> INSERTs in the parent table don't need to check for any reference from the
> child table, since they're new; there can't be a reference. UPDATEs and
> DELETEs do though, whether you le
On 4 Dec 2011, at 12:32, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
> mydb=# delete from stores where id = '20xrrs3';
> DELETE 0
> Time: 0.759 ms
It says it didn't delete any rows.
Since you get a duplicate key violation on inserting a row to that table,
there's obviously a row with that id there.
Perhaps there's a D
On 4 December 2011 12:32, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have deleted a row from a table. Confirmed by "SELECT". All
> associated children tables don't have this key value either.
>
> Yet, when I insert this row back again, the primary key index on this
> table gives me a duplicate error.
>
> A
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Szymon Guz wrote:
.
> and then show us the whole table structure, especially any rules or
> triggers.
Not many rules or triggers. See below.
I ran a REINDEX on the key allegedly being violated, and it finished
it in 30 mins or so, but still the same problem:
* Christoph Zwerschke (c...@online.de) wrote:
> (Btw, what negative consequences - if any - does it have if I set
> kernel.shmmax higher as necessary, like all available memory? Does
> this limit serve only as a protection against greedy applications?)
Didn't see this get answered... The long-and
This message has been digitally signed by the sender.
Re___GENERAL__Shared_memory_usage_in_PostgreSQL_9_1.eml
Description: Binary data
-
Hi-Tech Gears Ltd, Gurgaon, India
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to y
On 4.12.2011 15:06, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Christoph Zwerschke (c...@online.de) wrote:
>> (Btw, what negative consequences - if any - does it have if I set
>> kernel.shmmax higher as necessary, like all available memory? Does
>> this limit serve only as a protection against greedy applications?)
Am 04.12.2011 15:17, schrieb sfr...@snowman.net:
Didn't see this get answered... The long-and-short of that there aren't
any negative consequences of having it higher, as I understand it
anyway, except the risk of greedy apps. In some cases, shared memory
can't be swapped out, which makes it a
Christoph Zwerschke writes:
> Am 03.12.2011 20:31, schrieb Christoph Zwerschke:
>> Then, the corrected sum is 449627320 Bytes, which is only about 2MB less
>> than was requested. This remaining discrepancy can probably be explained
>> by additional overhead for a PostgreSQL 9.1 64bit server vs. a
Hi.
Is here any way to combine WITH and WITH RECURSIVE into single query?
Something like:
WITH t AS (some complicated select to speed up recursive part),
RECURSIVE r AS
(
...
UNION ALL
...
)
?
--
Maxim Boguk
Senior Postgresql DBA.
Maxim Boguk writes:
> Is here any way to combine WITH and WITH RECURSIVE into single query?
You have to put RECURSIVE immediately after WITH, but that doesn't force
you to actually make any particular query in the WITH-list recursive.
It just makes it possible for a query to be self-referential,
Lets say i have subquery which produce array[], position and new_value
Is here less clumsy way to set array[position] to the new_value (not
update but just change an element inside an array) than:
SELECT
_array[1:pos-1]
||newval
||_array[_pos+1:array_length(_array, 1)]
FR
On Dec 4, 2011, at 22:28, Maxim Boguk wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Is here any way to combine WITH and WITH RECURSIVE into single query?
>
> Something like:
>
> WITH t AS (some complicated select to speed up recursive part),
> RECURSIVE r AS
> (
> ...
> UNION ALL
> ...
> )
>
> ?
>
> --
> Maxim Boguk
>
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:45 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2011, at 22:28, Maxim Boguk wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > Is here any way to combine WITH and WITH RECURSIVE into single query?
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > WITH t AS (some complicated select to speed up recursive part),
> > RECURSI
On Dec 4, 2011, at 22:43, Maxim Boguk wrote:
> Lets say i have subquery which produce array[], position and new_value
>
> Is here less clumsy way to set array[position] to the new_value (not update
> but just change an element inside an array) than:
>
> SELECT
>_array[1:pos-1]
>
Some quetions about pl/pgsql and arrays[].
Is such constructions as:
RETURN NEXT array[1];
OR
SELECT val INTO array[1] FROM ...;
Should not work?
At least documentation about RETURN NEXT says:
"RETURN NEXT expression;"
I think array[1] is a valid expression.
--
Maxim Boguk
Senior Postgres
I have a database full of recipes, one recipe per row. I need to
store a bunch of arbitrary "flags" for each recipe to mark various
properties such as Gluton-Free, No meat, No Red Meat, No Pork, No
Animals, Quick, Easy, Low Fat, Low Sugar, Low Calorie, Low Sodium and
Low Carb. Users need to be ab
David Johnston writes:
>> Is here less clumsy way to set array[position] to the new_value (not update
>> but just change an element inside an array) than:
>>
>> SELECT
>> _array[1:pos-1]
>> ||newval
>> ||_array[_pos+1:array_length(_array, 1)]
> I do not know if there is a cleaner way but regar
On Dec 4, 2011, at 22:58, Maxim Boguk wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:45 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2011, at 22:28, Maxim Boguk wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > Is here any way to combine WITH and WITH RECURSIVE into single query?
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > WITH t AS (some comp
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:15 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2011, at 22:58, Maxim Boguk wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:45 PM, David Johnston <
> pol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 2011, at 22:28, Maxim Boguk <
>> maxim.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi.
>> >
>> > Is here a
Hello
it work on my pc
postgres=# \sf fx
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.fx()
RETURNS SETOF integer
LANGUAGE plpgsql
AS $function$ declare g int[] = '{20}';
begin
return next g[1];
return;
end;
$function$
postgres=# select fx();
fx
20
(1 row)
regards
Pavel Stehule
2011/12/5 Maxi
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> it work on my pc
>
> postgres=# \sf fx
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.fx()
> RETURNS SETOF integer
> LANGUAGE plpgsql
> AS $function$ declare g int[] = '{20}';
> begin
> return next g[1];
> return;
> end;
> $function$
> post
2011/12/5 Maxim Boguk :
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> it work on my pc
>>
>> postgres=# \sf fx
>> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.fx()
>> RETURNS SETOF integer
>> LANGUAGE plpgsql
>> AS $function$ declare g int[] = '{20}';
>> begin
>> return ne
On 12/05/2011 12:10 PM, Mike Christensen wrote:
I have a database full of recipes, one recipe per row. I need to
store a bunch of arbitrary "flags" for each recipe to mark various
properties such as Gluton-Free, No meat, No Red Meat, No Pork, No
Animals, Quick, Easy, Low Fat, Low Sugar, Low Calo
Hi Tomas
I tried it on the system having postgres-8.4.0 . And the behavior is same
.
Cluster means a group of machines having postgres installed on all of them .
Same database is created on all the machines one of which working as master
DB
on which operation (like insert/delete/update) will
>> I have a database full of recipes, one recipe per row. I need to
>> store a bunch of arbitrary "flags" for each recipe to mark various
>> properties such as Gluton-Free, No meat, No Red Meat, No Pork, No
>> Animals, Quick, Easy, Low Fat, Low Sugar, Low Calorie, Low Sodium and
>> Low Carb. User
29 matches
Mail list logo
