On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Joe Maldonado wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I apologize for the wide distribution but we recently ran into an
> interesting behaviour using PostgreSQL 8.0.3 and did not know whether this
> was a bug or intended behaviour.
>
> When an IN clause contains a NULL value the entire in cla
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello pgsql is complaining and I can't seem to figure out what the
> error is talking about.
> Basically it's claiming that multiple default vaues are being
> specified, but nowhere in statement below is there one single place
> where I can see an erro
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Hrishi Joshi wrote:
> I need to define a Unique index on 3 non-PK fields (composite key) on my
> table in PostgreSQL 8.0.3.
>
> The problem is, if any of those 3 fields is Null, PostgreSQL allows
> duplicate rows to be inserted. While searching through archives, I found
> mor
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Matthew Peter wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I'm using 8.0.3. I'm using
> something similiar to the example you gave. My
> postgresql install is on offline developement box and
> I would have to type it all out longhand.
>
> Shouldn't >= also return Carols records since she
>
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Yes, clearly that is the wrong result according to the SQL standard.
>
> Here is a SQL*Server query:
> select 1 where 'a' = 'a ' AND 'a' = 'a ' AND 'a ' = 'a '
>
> It returns (correctly): 1
Doesn't that depend on the collating sequence in use, or
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Terry Fielder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 2:05 PM
> > To: Dann Corbit
> > Cc: Tino Wildenhain; Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-general@p
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, surabhi.ahuja wrote:
> i have a stored procedure
>
> insert_table(integer)
> which does "insert into table (x) value ($1)";
>
> now in my client i call the stored procedure as
>
> select insert_table("3");
>
> it works fine and inserts 3 into the table
>
> but suppose i give
your first mail, there was a question of ('') which is not a
valid integer. Calling insert('200', 'surabhi', '') or insert('',
'surabhi', '10') are going to give the "invalid input syntax for integer"
because an empty string d
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Andrus wrote:
> >> SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar::CHAR(3)='ABC';
>
> > Your query is the same as using LIKE, so why not express it that way?
>
> I want simply to select by first 3 characters. LIKE is too powerful and
> unnessecary. LIKE requires
> escaping % and ? characters in
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, [ISO-8859-2] Micha? Otroszczenko wrote:
> I wonder If I could move additional join condition from ON part of
> query to where part.
>
> For example instead of:
>
> SELECT * FROM
> booking_load AS bload
> LEFT OUTER JOIN dict_load_type_tsl AS load_tsl ON (
>
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Geert Jansen wrote:
> I'm experiencing some weird results with SELECT queries when I recently
> switched to using schemas. Basically, the same query works OK when I set
> my search_path to include the schema, but it doesn't when I qualify the
> tables in my query.
>
> One quer
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Dan Libby wrote:
> Background:
>
> I have a hierarchical table where I have coordinate data for only the leaf
> nodes. I therefore want to find the center of all the leaf nodes under a
> given parent node, and set the parent node coordinate to that center point.
>
> I can cal
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, rlee0001 wrote:
> I know, for example, that by default PostgreSQL assigns every record a
> small unique identifier called an OID. It seems reasonable then, that
> when the DBA creates a cascading foreign key to a record, that the DBMS
> could, instead of storing the record's en
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Javier Carlos wrote:
>Does anybody know what's the meaning of the c (lowercase) privilege in
> PostgreSQL 8.2 Beta?
That should be for CONNECT privilege.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, John Cobo wrote:
> I am trying to create some functions which return many rows using
> plpgsql. This example could be done with SQL, but later I will need
> plpglsql. I was constantly getting the wrong record type error with a
> couple different functions. Finally I found t
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Jamie Deppeler wrote:
> Here is my problem
>
> I have a level structure which is 5 levels deep with 6 tables, for this
> example i will call it table1,table2,table3,table4,table5,table6
>
> (1)table1
> (2)table2
> (3)table3
> (4)table4
> (5)table5,table6
> (6)table7,table8
>
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, novnov wrote:
> I'm completely new to pgsql, using 8.1 and pgAdmin III. I'm not finding a lot
> of bare bones simple example stored procs that I can learn from. It would be
> very helpful if someone could show me some simple code.
>
> In the pgAdmin interface I've been picking
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, novnov wrote:
>
> Thanks to both of you for responding. I should have included the code for my
> own attempt, at #1 which is just as you suggest:
>
> update item set itemname = 'fox';
>
> I've tried single, and double quoting the table and field names; call caps
> to the UPDATE
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Alain Roger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I' still with my stored procedure :
>
> -- Function: SP_U_001(typeofarticle varchar)
>
> -- DROP FUNCTION SP_U_001(typeofarticle varchar);
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION SP_U_001(IN typeofarticles VARCHAR)
> RETURNS SETOF active_articles AS
> $BO
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Alexander Presber wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I am trying to speed up a query on an integer column by defining an
> index as follows
>
> > CREATE INDEX idx_main_subject ON pdb.main (lower(main_subject::text)
> using varchar_ops);
>
> on column "main_subject".
>
> I had hope
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> please have a look at these introducing statements:
>
> sandbox=# create table q(i integer, t text, primary key (i,t));
> sandbox=# create table f(i integer, t text, foreign key (i,t) references q);
>
> Now, this is surprising me:
>
> s
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, gustavo halperin wrote:
> I can't create triggers, when I call for example:
> ficha=> CREATE TRIGGER TRG_persons_id AFTER INSERT ON ficha_ofperson
> ficha-> EXECUTE PROCEDURE add_person_id ( 'family_id', 'person_id' );
>
> , the creation never finish and finally, after many m
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Jeff Ross wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Since ceil() produces float8 which does not implicitly cast to int,
> > this call has probably never done what you thought --- AFAICS it will
> > cast all the arguments to text and invoke substring(text,text,text)
> > which treats its
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Yonatan Ben-Nes wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm trying to write a PL/pgSQL function which execute an insert, I encounter
> a problem when I try to insert NULL value into an integer field.
> The following code is for reproducing:
>
> CREATE TABLE test(
> bh INT8
> );
>
> CREATE O
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Joris Dobbelsteen wrote:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> >Martijn van Oosterhout
> >Sent: donderdag 22 februari 2007 18:17
> >To: Joris Dobbelsteen
> >Cc: Robert Haas; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> >Subject:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Joris Dobbelsteen wrote:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Martijn van Oosterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: vrijdag 23 februari 2007 9:50
> >To: Joris Dobbelsteen
> >Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> >Subject: Re: [GENERAL] complex referential integrity constra
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Randall Smith wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
> > that is that relying on "artifacts" of behaviour is generally a bad
> > idea.
> >
> > For instance, many databases accept != for not equal, but the sql
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Randall Smith wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Randall Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >>> This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
> >>> that is that relyin
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Glen W. Mabey wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using 8.1.8, and I have a situation where a record in one table is
> only meaningful when it is referenced via foreign key by one or more
> records in any one of several tables.
>
> So, really what I want is when one of the referring recor
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Carlos H. Reimer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have a PostgreSQL 8.0.6 cluster configured with lc_collate=pt_BR.UTF-8
> and when we run the following SELECT:
> SELECT substr(nomerazao,1,4),
> ascii(substr(nomerazao,1,1)),
> ascii(substr(nomerazao,2,1))
> from spunico.unico order by nome
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Carlos H. Reimer wrote:
> Humm, ok, it is clear now.
>
> And is there a way to change something in this behaviour, like not ignore
> spaces and some type of symbols?
Well, right now it's generally determined by your OS's definition of the
locale you've chosen. You might be ab
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Andrus wrote:
> I have tables with large number of columns some of which are duplicate.
> I need to use
>
> SELECT t1.*, t2.* FROM t1 join t2 using (t)
>
> since I don't know all column names of t1 and t2 tables at design time.
>
> In this case PostgreSQL returns table with du
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Roland Turner wrote:
> I'm working with 7.4, but the 8.2 docs[1] have the same apparent error:
>
> ROW SHARE
>
> Conflicts with the EXCLUSIVE and ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock modes.
>
> The SELECT FOR UPDATE and SELECT FOR SHARE commands acquire a
> lock of th
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, David Garamond wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>What is "text + text" supposed to do right now?
> >
> > Nothing.
>
> Then are these bugs? (7.4.5 and 8.0.0beta1 give same results). Frankly,
> the current behaviour is quite strange to me.
>
> --
> =# select co
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Ed Stoner wrote:
> I am unable to use the "CREATE USER" command with numeric user names
> (i.e. CREATE USER 35236 WITH PASSWORD '1234';). Is this a limitation or
> a problem somewhere with how I have things configured? Is there are
> workaround?
I believe you can create a
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Henry Combrinck wrote:
> Hello
>
> Searched around, but could not find this mentioned.
>
> I've noticed the following behaviour in 7.4.5:
>
> [explain analyse] select * from foo where
> col1 = 1 or
> col1 = 2 or
> col1 = 3 or
> col1 = 4 or
> col1 = 5 or
> col1 = 6 or
> col1 =
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Philippe Lang wrote:
> I have tried to correct that by adding a "SET CONSTRAINTS ALL DEFERRED"
> in every trigger and function, hoping it would solve my problem. Maybe
> it helped, but it did not solve anything.
Note that set constraints all deferred does nothing unless you m
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Philip Hofstetter wrote:
> > As for what's SQL standard, I think by a strict definition your query
> > shouldn't be allowed at all, referencing an undefined table.
>
> This is exactly what I think too. I mean: I know I made an error in my
> query. It would just have been easie
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Leen Besselink wrote:
> Eddy Macnaghten zei:
> > I think you are correct in not using OIDs, as, firstly, as you point out
> > they are optional, also that they are not neccessarily unique.
> >
>
> I'm sorry Eddy, but you most be mistaken:
>
> Every row in POSTGRESQL is assigne
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > It's enabled in large part for backwards compatibility. There's a
> runtime
> > option that controls the behavior (add_missing_from).
> >
> IMHO, it would be a more natural choice
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mike Mascari wrote:
> I'd like to ensure that the creation of a department also implies the
> creation of two to eight projects; no more, no less:
>
> CREATE TABLE departments (
> department text primary key not null
> );
>
> CREATE TABLE projects (
> project text primary k
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Stephan,
>
> > In general, when we add a backwards compatibility option, we give
> > a couple of versions before the default is changed.
> >
> Perhaps the 8.0 would be a perfect time since it's a change of the major
> number.
Maybe, but I think it'
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mike Mascari wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mike Mascari wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd like to ensure that the creation of a department also implies the
> >>creation of two to eight projects; no more, no less:
>
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mike Mascari wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mike Mascari wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd like to ensure that the creation of a department also implies the
> >>creation of two to eight projects; no more, no less
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Net Virtual Mailing Lists") wrote:
>CREATE OR REPLACE RULE sometable_delete ON DELETE DO delete FROM cache
>WHERE tablename='sometable';
>CREATE OR REPLACE RULE sometable_insert ON INSERT DO delete FROM cache
>WHERE tablename='sometable';
>CREATE OR REPLACE RULE sometable_updat
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Morten K. Poulsen wrote:
> Please let me know if this is not the list to ask this kind of question.
>
> I am trying to optimize a query that joins two relatively large (75 rows
> in
> each) tables. If I do it using a subselect, I can "force" the planner to
> choose
> the
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Oleg Lebedev wrote:
> Is it possible to modify a foreign key constraint and force it to
> cascade on update? If there is no such SQL command, then is it possible
> to update some system tables to accomplish this?
>
> The problem is that I have a bunch of tables with FK constra
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Oleg Lebedev wrote:
>
> In order to find all FK declared on a table I query tg_trigger view. The
> query lists all FKs declared on the table as well as all the ones
> referencing the table. I noticed that FKs that are declared on the table
> have pgtype equal to 21, and FKs re
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Terry Lee Tucker wrote:
> Is it ok to put a unique index on the oid for my tables? We are in the process
> of moving from Progress Software to PostgreSQL. In the Progress world, you
> can always uniquely, and quickly find a record by using their version of oid,
> which is reci
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Scott Frankel wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2004, at 5:09 PM, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> > Scott,
> >
> > On Nov 12, 2004, at 10:00 AM, Scott Frankel wrote:
> >
> >> color | date
> >> +
> >> red| 2004-01-19
> >> blue | 2004-05-24
> >> red| 2004-04-
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Gregory S. Williamson wrote:
> Looking in the logs I see:
> 2004-11-13 13:30:28 LOG: unexpected EOF on client connection
> 2004-11-13 13:30:40 LOG: unexpected EOF on client connection
> 2004-11-13 13:38:28 LOG: could not send data to client: Broken pipe
> 2004-11-13 13:42:1
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Jeff Eckermann wrote:
> --- Jerry III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which means that sometimes they do not return the
> > correct value - if you
> > have a trigger that inserts another record you will
> > not get the right value.
>
> If you are new to PostgreSQL, as you sa
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:
> At 16:23 18/11/2004 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > The system seems to think that a scan is cheap because the table is so
> > small.
> The table currently contains just over 1 elements. So 238 rows is a
> small part of it.
>
> > Have you ev
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Cornelius Buschka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we saw the following problem:
>
> We deleted all rows from a table B referencing table A (~50 records). No
> problem, but the following try to delete all records from table A (~18)
> lead
> to a "never ending" statement. We found ou
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> At 07:47 PM 11/23/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim Seymour
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:18 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subj
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Timothy Perrigo wrote:
> Sorry for the brief response earlier; I was a bit rushed. After
> looking into it, it's a bit messier than I thought (at least, as far as
> I can tell...perhaps one of the gurus on this list can show us a better
> way).
>
> Ordinarily, when you write
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm using v. 7.4.2, and am encountering a problem with serial types. On an
> insert into a table that results in failure for any number of reasone (mostly
> violation of contraints) I've found that the Sequence for the column of type
> serial will
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> I need to create a list of all rows of the combination of two tables.
> For reasons I can't go into, I need this list to be in a single query,
> and not write a function to do it.
>
> I thought about doing something like this:
> select |COALESCE(table1
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Henry Molina wrote:
> drop table t1;
> drop table t2;
> create table t1 (id integer);
> create table t2 (id integer);
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION myfunc() RETURNS trigger AS '
> BEGIN
> insert into t2 values(NEW.id);
> END;
> ' LANGUAGE plpgsql;
>
> CREATE TRIGGER
>
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, C G wrote:
> Is there a way to use locks within a trigger? My example below gives the
> error:
It's not the lock that's the problem I think. The begin work is failing
because you can't start a transaction inside the function. Were you trying
to release the lock at the commit
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Per Jensen wrote:
> select count(*)
> from accesslog
> where time between (timeofday()::timestamp - INTERVAL '30 d') and
> timeofday()::timestamp;
Besides the type issue, timeofday() is volatile and thus is not allowed to
be turned into a constant in order to do an index sca
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, cheng shan wrote:
>In the first version, the function destroy_object_type( ) just drop the
>table only. But when I find the triggers havn't
>been actived yet, I add the delete setense. This time it becomes even
>worse, the system throws error message.ERROR: could
>not open r
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Stephan Szabo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Per Jensen wrote:
> > > select count(*)
> > > from accesslog
> > > where time between (timeofday()::timestamp - INTERVAL '30 d') and
>
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Tomas [iso-8859-1] Skäre wrote:
> I have a table that looks like this:
>
> Table "public.cjm_object"
> Column | Type| Modifiers
> ---+---+---
> timestamp | bigint| not null
> jobid | bigint
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Vitaly Belman wrote:
> I have the following code in one of my trigger functions
>
> ---
> IF old.series_id<>new.series_id THEN
> ...
> ...
> END IF;
> ---
>
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It has come up several times on the various postgresql lists that in order
> to get around the requirement of DISTINCT ON parameters matching the first
> ORDER BY parameters, wrap the distinct query in a new 'order by' query:
>
> select * from (selec
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Mage wrote:
> "order by a asc b desc"
>
> how can I create an index for this?
You need to create an operator class for reversed comparison of whatever
type b is and then use it on b in the index definition.
Something like (however, you should really use a C function for the
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Terry Lee Tucker wrote:
> As you can see, this truck is going to be 2 hours late. The return value I'm
> looking for is the difference between Appt. Interval and Travel Interval, as
> in: return (appt_interval - travel_interval). This value will be stored in a
> column of ty
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think I created a type that was compatible with the btree index, and
> > everything seems fine, except that it doesn't actually use the index. I
> > created the operators and the opclass as well.
>
> > => explain s
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Craig Bryden wrote:
> When I run select * from GetAccountInfo (100)
> I get the following error message: ERROR: a column definition list is
> required for functions returning "record"
You need to say something like:
select * from GetAccountInfo(100) AS foo(field1 int, fiel
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Alex wrote:
> i have a unique index on a table over multiple columns. If now one of
> the records has a null value in one of the indexed columns i can insert
> the same record multiple times.
>
> Is this a problem within postgres or expected?
Expected. NULLs are effectively
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Even at that, I think that being able to insert more than one null value
> into a unique index should be considered as a bug (or diagnosed as an
> error).
AFAICT the UNIQUE constraint that it's used to model explicitly allows
multiple NULLs in the spec s
ent so giving the
unique index behavior which makes it unable to model the constraint
wouldn't be terribly workable (without rewriting the constraint to be
modeled in a separate fashion).
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, J
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> > True, but the standard says nothing about the creation of an index, so
> > you can make it behave in any way that you see fit.
>
> The unique index is however used to mod
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> It is clear to me that only allowing a single null value will not
> violate the explanation below.
Given two rows in T with one column each
(NULL), (NULL)
Find two rows such that the value of each column in one row is non-null
and equal to the value of
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Would the constraint not be satisfied if each combination (including
> NULL) were not also forced to be unique?
The constraint would be satisfied, however cases that the constraint is
satisfied for would not be allowed. The case I gave below is one for
w
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Since postgres already incoporates code to check foreign keys more
> efficiently (when doing alter table ... add constraint .. foreign key,
> postgres seems to use a merge or a hash join, instead of a nested loop),
> I wondered how hard it would be t
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> >
> >>Since postgres already incoporates code to check foreign keys more
> >>efficiently (when doing alter table ... add constraint .. foreign
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > It's not sufficient to do the delete for non existant pk rows in the
> > deferred case. I also think we'd need to decide on the behavior for the
> > PostgreSQL case where a user trigger
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Alex Turner wrote:
> Insert fails with a foreign key constraint error because entity_phone
> points to entity, not person, and the rows aren't physicaly in entity,
> they are in person.
>
> Two questions:
> 1) Why can't we make this work the 'right' way - not doing so either
>
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Ben wrote:
> I run this:
>
> select
> coalesce(a.n,0) as a,
> coalesce(b.n,0) as b,
> coalesce(a.s,b.s) as s
> from
> ( select 1 as n, 0 as s) a full outer join
> ( select 2 as n, 1 as s) b
> on
> a.s = b.s
>
> ... and get this:
>
> a | b |
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Sandeep Gaikwad wrote:
> I can give foreign key relationship between two tables of same
> database. Can I give foreign key relationship between tables of two
> databases ? Plz, let me know if possible & send me how can I do that?
Unfortunately, that's not really current
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Ed L. wrote:
> I ask because it seems like "char" and char should match as type names,
> but don't.
Unfortunately, "char" and char are actually different types in
declarations like that AFAIK. When in quotes it refers to the postgres
single byte single character type, IIRC
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Eric Jain wrote:
> I'm trying to fill a table with several million rows that are obtained
> directly from a complex query.
>
> For whatever reason, Postgres at one point starts using several
> gigabytes of memory, which eventually slows down the system until it no
> longer resp
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Berend Tober wrote:
> I encountered what looks like unusually sorting behavior, and I'm wondering if
> anyone can tell me if this is supposted to happen (and then if so, why) or if
> this is a bug:
If you ran initdb with a locale such as en_US, a result like what you got
is ex
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Guy Rouillier wrote:
> I using 8.0.1. I create 3 tables with these definitions:
>
> create table t1 (serv_id varchar(50) not null);
> create table t2 (serv_id varchar(50) not null);
> create table t3 (serv_id varchar(50) not null);
>
> Now I create a view like this:
>
> crea
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Neil Dugan wrote:
> I am using PostgreSQL 7.4.7
> I have a table with serveral fields two of these are a serialno
> (bigserial) and name(varchar). I have created two indexs on these
> fields.
> 1) on name
> 2) on name,serialno
> if I use the command
> 'select * from t
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Ruben Oliveira wrote:
> Hello everybody !
>
> I have this order by :
> select lalala from tablex order by field_y;
> where field_y is a text column.
>
> that returns something like :
> 2.1004.11
> 21.00.461
> 2.1006.21
>
> in PostgreSQL 7.3.2 in Linux Mandrake 9.1
>
> but in
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Daniel Naschenweng wrote:
> I create this table:
> create table teste (campo1 varchar(20));
>
> And this view:
> create view vteste as select * from teste;
>
> When I try change the type of the column raise thir error:
> db=# alter table teste alter column campo1 type varchar(
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Wes wrote:
> I haven't seen anything to indicate that 8.x improves foreign key
> refererence locking and fixes the foreign key 'deadlock detected' issue.
> Has that been addressed in 8.1?
8.1 should be using the new shared row locks for doing the checks. This
should fix the
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Wes wrote:
> On 11/25/05 2:40 AM, "Stephan Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 8.1 should be using the new shared row locks for doing the checks. This
> > should fix the case mentioned.
>
> Hmm. I'm looking in the "Wha
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Harakiri wrote:
> im using postgresql 8 under SLES 9 and RH 3.x - under
> both OS i encountered the following problem :
>
> Lets say i have a table, which has no reference to any
> other table - and i create one entry for each day of
> the year within this table (PK). During a
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Harakiri wrote:
> Hi, thanks for the response ,
>
> >
> > It's hard to say with just the above. Are you doing
> > other things in the
> > transactions besides a single update of that table
> > and/or is the order of
>
> in each transaction i do basically the same stuff :
>
> in
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Benjamin Smith wrote:
> A few questions:
>
> 1) Let's assume that I have some multipile foreign keys, and I join on three
> values. For example:
>
> Create table gangsters (
> name varchar not null,
> birthdate integer not null,
> shirtnumber integer not nul
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Richard van den Berg wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > You've got that 100% backwards: you should be complaining to Debian that
> > > it's not their business to editorialize on the default setting.
>
> Actually it
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Stephan Szabo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > In and of itself it's a good option. However, choosing that option means
> > that Debian is saying that compatibility of data files with default
> > compiled Postgre
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Ted Byers wrote:
> I have just encountered another problem. I am not sure if it is with my
> code, or with how I am working with Postgres/pgAdmin III.
>
> Here is another function, as created using the wizard/dialog box in pgAmin
> III for creating functions:
>
> CREATE FUNC
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 02:38:48PM -0800, CSN wrote:
> > I'm still confused what the problem was.
>
> I think the problem is related to having multiple foreign key
> constraints with ON DELETE SET NULL referencing the same target.
> The triggers that enfo
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> __( 'stdin' )_
> /
> | psql:omegasector.sql:125: ERROR: there is no unique constraint matchi
> | ng given keys for referenced table "cities"
> \_
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> Which in this case hints that there's a problem with the schema.
>
> What is the final effect you're looking for? The above does let you
Err, that should be doesn't.
> lookup the DE or FR strings for a city of a member (w
101 - 200 of 595 matches
Mail list logo
