Hi, list.
I've been running a query from pgAdmin for a couple of hours, just to
realize that the pgAdmin timer that counts ellapsed time had stopped,
but the status bar still said "executing". So I first thought it
could've been some kind of bug with the counter. However, after some
more time, I fo
Hello list, I'm having a locking problem and I'm not sure what is causing
it.
I have two pgsql concurrent transactions, running each in a separate
connection to postgres (I can reproduce it from pgadmin).
T1) operates only on table A
begin transaction;
select id from A where id = 100 for update n
t;b". SQL state: 55P03
Regarding my original question, I would like to know if this is a known
issue/feature/bug/unwanted optimization consequence/or is it just a normal
behavior that I should've had predicted.
Best regards,
Eduardo.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
&
Hi, would it be possible to implement a *nowait *modifier to the
*update*statement in order to tell it not to wait and raise an error
-just like a
select for update nowait would-, instead of defaulting to waiting forever
until the lock becomes available?
The lack of such a modifier nowadays forces
n Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Eduardo Piombino
> wrote:
> > Hi, would it be possible to implement a nowait modifier to the update
> > statement in order to tell it not to wait and raise an error -just like a
> > s
I'm sorry, isn't it meant for table locks?
I was talking about row level locking.
Eduardo
2011/9/8 pasman pasmański
> Try a command LOCK NOWAIT
>
> 2011/9/8, Eduardo Piombino :
> > Hi, would it be possible to implement a *nowait *modifier to the
> > *update*state
Moncure
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Eduardo Piombino
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi, would it be possible to implement a nowait modifier to the update
> >>> > statement in order to tell it not to wait and ra
hi, fks do just that.
you can create your fk with just one command:
alter table xxx add constraint fk_name foreign key (user_id) references
users (id);
parent table's id field should also be of the same type and also it should
be primary key or at least unique.
you can create your pk with (if you
I'm sorry Reid, driving back home I realized that the previous query I
suggested didn't do what I was expecting, cause it would compute all of val2
for each val1, even if they belonged to another group (not for a particular
val1/date pair), or in other words, to another date.
I've considered this
Hi, if you are thinking to access data in that manner, what's the point of
bits (or tags)?
The idea behind having a value and then using a bitmask is to be able to
test the value against different bitmasks, each bitmask corresponding to a
different tag or tag combination.
The *where *statement yo
Hello list, I'm having a problem with a production system.
I have an application that runs 7x24. It is multithreaded, and every thread
has its own connection to the database.
We have two types of devices connected to each thread, human operated PCs
for billing purposes, and rabbit microcontrollers
.
But i'm not sure about the real gain of that.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Eduardo Piombino writes:
> > Do you have any idea on what could be causing a SELECT NOW() to never
> come
> > back?
>
> That's truly bizarre. Can you attach to one
Hello list, this is my first msg here. I hope this is the correct place for
this subject, I couldn't find any more specific list for this.
This thought had been bugging me for some time now and I thought it was time
to share it with you pg gurus.
Why in god's sake is there not a "date with time z
ociated time zone, I
think. Am I wrong on this? Apart from what SQL Standard may say, for
instance.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2009 3:43:02 am Eduardo Piombino wrote:
> > Hello list, this is my first msg here. I hope this is
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2009 3:41:42 pm Eduardo Piombino wrote:
> > Hi Adrian, thanks for your answer.
> >
> > I see current criteria and all the SQL-standard compliance policy, but
> > wouldn't it still
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 2:38:43 pm Eduardo Piombino wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Adrian Klaver
> wrote:
> > > On Saturday 28 November 2009 3:41:42 pm Eduardo Piombino wrote:
> > > >
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 01:51:33AM -0300, Eduardo Piombino wrote:
> > Analysis of the extra complications added by DST's does not add anything,
> > yet, to the point I'm trying to make, regardless th
17 matches
Mail list logo
