At 18:31 24/10/00 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
>
>Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
>> > > > Are there many applications which have many SELECT statements(without
>> > > > FOR UPDATE) in one tx ?
>> > >
>> > > Why not ?
>> > >
>> > It seems to me that multiple SELECT statements in a tx has little
>
> I would suggest a slightly different rule, but maybe it comes out at the
> same place in the end: if we can't find a unique match treating UNKNOWN
> the way we do now, try again assuming it is TEXT (or at least string
> category). As you say, this is reasonable given that the original
> literal
>Next time you can make your patch with "diff -crN" so that you don't have
>to create a separate tarball.
No problem. I tried just doing a diff with cvs but wasn't able to get
the -N option to work. This is the first time I've ever tried
patching unix software so I'm sorry if it's a bit messy.
The postmaster contains this code just before it waits for input:
#ifdef USE_SSL
for (curr = DLGetHead(PortList); curr; curr = DLGetSucc(curr))
{
if (((Port *) DLE_VAL(curr))->ssl &&
SSL_pending(((Port *) DLE_VAL(curr))->ssl) > 0)
{
> Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> bpcharin() will most definitely NOT fix the problem, because it often
> >> will not know the target column's typmod, if indeed there is an
> >> identifiable target column at all.
>
> > Can you give me any example for this case?
>
> UPDATE foo SET
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch was installed, with xor as "#". The parser still needs work.
> Besides the known issue of "|", this also parses funny:
> => select 5 & ~ 6;
> ERROR: Unable to identify a right operator '&' for type 'int4'
I think we're kind of stuck o
Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> > > > In my understanding,locking levels you provided contains
> > > > an implicit share/exclusive lock on the corrsponding
> > > > pg_class tuple i.e. AccessExclusive Lock acquires an
> > > > exclusive lock on the corresping pg_class tuple and
> > > > other locks acquire
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I found it from the libpq source: PQbackendPID
> I still think it could be documented ;)
It is.
regards, tom lane
I am forwarding this not to belittle MySQL, but to hopefully help in the
development of our own encryption protocol for secure password
authentication over the network.
The point being is that if we offer the protocol to do it, we had better
ensure its security, or someone WILL find the hole. Ho
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc has them all listed .. not sure how to
> > get there from the Web site ... Vince?
>
> There are links from both the Developer's Corner and User's Lounge ->
>
Tried a build from today's checkins, and we didn't find -lperl...
mkdir blib/arch
mkdir blib/arch/auto
mkdir blib/arch/auto/plperl
mkdir blib/lib/auto
mkdir blib/lib/auto/plperl
/bin/cc -c -I../../../src/include -I/usr/local/include -O-DVERSION=\"0.10\"
-DXS_VERSION=\"0.10\" -Kpic -I/usr/
Bruce Hartzler writes:
> this patch and tar archive will add support for the darwin/osxpb to the current cvs
>tree.
Next time you can make your patch with "diff -crN" so that you don't have
to create a separate tarball.
> - the config.guess and config.sub files have been updated by apple to
>
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I propose that we modify the heuristic slightly, so that if there are
> function matches with arguments from different categories, and if one or
> more of the possible matches comes from the "string" category, then that
> category is preferred.
I woul
> > > > > Are there many applications which have many SELECT statements(without
> > > > > FOR UPDATE) in one tx ?
> > > >
> > > > Why not ?
> > > >
> > > It seems to me that multiple SELECT statements in a tx has little
> > > meaning unless the tx is executed in SERIALIZABLE isolation level.
> >
>
i'm developing one. a library for batch transactions, so you
can continue processing in the middle of the file(or table) in
case an abort happens. it can support multi-databases.
i think i can share it to freshmeat.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:52:38 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
> anyon
The parser has some heuristics to try to match up existing functions and
operators when not all types are known apriori. We've had this
capability since v6.4, with some modest evolution since then.
Currently, if there is more than one function, say, which *could* match
the specified query, and if
> > > In my understanding,locking levels you provided contains
> > > an implicit share/exclusive lock on the corrsponding
> > > pg_class tuple i.e. AccessExclusive Lock acquires an
> > > exclusive lock on the corresping pg_class tuple and
> > > other locks acquire a share lock, Is it right ?
> >
>
Tom Lane writes:
> >> Actually, given your description of the problem, I'm half
> >> inclined to revert the whole patch and instead make configure's
> >> test for availability of first include
> >> , so that that configure test will succeed on IRIX
> >> etc.
>
> Pete,
> After looking a
Yes, the joins were one of the reasons I was going to do it.
If no one starts a list by Saturday, then I'll start one when I go through
JDBC.
Peter
--
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support Officer, Maidstone Borough Council
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk
All views expressed
Pete Forman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On IRIX 6.5.5m I get the following error. The header is
> included by (nearly!) all of the standard headers. It is the IRIX
> equivalent of config.h if you will.
> configure:4349: checking for netinet/tcp.h
> configure:4359: cc -E conftest.c >/dev/nu
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc has them all listed .. not sure how to
> get there from the Web site ... Vince?
There are links from both the Developer's Corner and User's Lounge ->
General Info.
Vince.
>
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Krzysztof K
Vadim B. Mikheev - CVS writes:
> Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 @ 05:56:09
> Author: vadim
>
> Update of /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/access/transam
> from hub.org:/home/projects/pgsql/tmp/cvs-serv70071/backend/access/transam
>
> Modified Files:
> xact.c xlog.c x
Larry Rosenman writes:
> comments .. failed
> geometry .. failed
> *** expected/comments.out Fri Jul 14 10:43:55 2000
> --- results/comments.out Sun Oct 22 19:38:45 2000
> ***
> *** 42,47
> --- 42,48
> */
> /* This block comment surrounds a query which itsel
Peter Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Idea: As we have this type of query in more than one part of the source tree
> (ie: psql, jdbc, probably odbc), should we have a section in the
> documentation containing common queries, like: retrieving a list of tables,
> views etc?
That's a good though
Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> I was unable to find the way to access the backend pid from libpq
>
> It is probably saved somewhere as part of BackendKeyData message
> but there seems to be no function to access it ?
>
> I'm using a temporary solution (my own 'C' function) but I'd like
> to use the i
>> This is an IRIX bug but I think that we need to work around it.
> Roger, will do.
I have changed configure in the CVS repository to test for netinet/tcp.h
per your recommendation. At your convenience, please verify that it
really does do the right thing on IRIX.
rega
> We seem to be missing a file "src/include/access/xlogutils.h".
Ops, sorry - please create empty file, it will work
(I have no its src at office comp -:().
Vadim
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was unable to find the way to access the backend pid from libpq
extern int PQbackendPID(const PGconn *conn);
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane writes:
> After looking at this I'm confused again. The configure test
> consists of seeing whether cpp will process
>
> #include
>
> without complaint. I can well believe that the full C compilation
> process will generate errors if is included without
> also including , b
I was unable to find the way to access the backend pid from libpq
It is probably saved somewhere as part of BackendKeyData message
but there seems to be no function to access it ?
I'm using a temporary solution (my own 'C' function) but I'd like
to use the info already received.
Hello,
anyone thought about implementing two-phase commit to
be able to support distributed transactions ?
I have no clue how complex it would be, someone knows ?
devik
> (other SVR4's prolly need -lsocket -lnsl)
Something like
AC_CHECK_LIB(socket,socket)
or something like that? In fact, it complains about inet_aton and
gethostbyname.
--
contaminated fish and microchips
huge supertankers on Arabian trips
oily propaganda from the leaders' lip
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
[snip]
>
> Also the result would be, that the first readonly statements are allowed to
> see schema changes, but selects after the first DML would not :-(
>
Does it mean that even read-only statements aren't allowed
to release locks after other DMLs ?
Regards.
Hi
I was going to redo those queries this coming weekend anyhow (as thats when
I'll be getting some spare time next), as there are still some problems with
the existing ones.
Any other "minor" changes I should keep an eye out for?
Idea: As we have this type of query in more than one part of the sou
> More of that - while one xaction will wait to alter a table no new xaction
> will be allowed to access this table too.
Yes, I forgot, that placing an exclusive lock will make later shared lock
requests wait.
Andreas
> > Also the result would be, that the first readonly statements are allowed to
> > see schema changes, but selects after the first DML would not :-(
>
> Does it mean that even read-only statements aren't allowed
> to release locks after other DMLs ?
That is, what Tom is suggesting, but not afte
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> > > > Are there many applications which have many SELECT statements(without
> > > > FOR UPDATE) in one tx ?
> > >
> > > Why not ?
> > >
> > It seems to me that multiple SELECT statements in a tx has little
> > meaning unless the tx is executed in SERIALIZABLE isol
> > > Are there many applications which have many SELECT statements(without
> > > FOR UPDATE) in one tx ?
> >
> > Why not ?
> >
> It seems to me that multiple SELECT statements in a tx has little
> meaning unless the tx is executed in SERIALIZABLE isolation level.
E.g. a table is accessed multipl
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes, and holding a row exclusive lock must imho at least
> grab a shared
> > table lock
>
> As indeed it does. Our disagreement seems to be just on the point of
> whether it's safe to allow a read-only transaction to release its
> Acces
39 matches
Mail list logo
