[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> It Seems to Me that after an orderly shutdown, the WAL files should be,
> effectively, slag -- they should contain no deltas from the current
> table contents. In practice that means the only part of the format that
> *should* matter is whatever it ta
I said:
> In Turkish this means that either INSERT or insert will be seen as
> a keyword, while either XINSERT or xinsert will become "xýnsert".
Sheesh. Gotta think twice before pressing SEND. That should be
INSERT -> keyword
insert -> keyword
XINSERT -> "xýnsert"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) writes:
> Has anyone come up with a good solution? The last one I saw from Tom
> Lane required compile-time options which isn't an option for us.
As far as I know it's fixed in the currently-committed sources. The
key is to do case nor
Sezai YILMAZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Justin Clift wrote:
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > Sezai YILMAZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > With Turkish locale it is not possible to write SQL queries in
> > > > CAPITAL letters. SQL identifiers like "INSERT" and "UNION" first
> > > > are
> It Seems to Me that after an orderly shutdown, the WAL files should be,
> effectively, slag -- they should contain no deltas from the current
> table contents. In practice that means the only part of the format that
> *should* matter is whatever it takes to discover that they really are
> s
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 10:54:04AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Is there a version number in the WAL file?
> >
> > catversion.h will do fine, no?
> >
> > > Can we put conditional code in there to create
> > > new log file records with an updated
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, I was thinking a few things. Right now, if we update the
> > catversion.h, we will require a dump/reload. If we can update just the
> > WAL version stamp, that will allow us to fix WAL format problems without
> > requiring people to dump/relo
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 06:03:34PM -0500, Michael Richards wrote:
>
> Having written this tool which is at least the basis for a complete table
> data verification program (it's written in c++) I'm wondering if there is
> any chance of having it pointed to, linked to or otherwise made available?
> >I've got a clue for ApplixWare, if you happen to have that package
> >(US$90).
> Please post it, Thomas.
> I got nowhere following their instructions.
Have you looked at *our* instructions in the chapter on ODBC? I haven't
done much with it in quite a while, but afaik it all should still w
> From: Bruce Momjian [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 9:54 AM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL & RC1 status
>
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Is there a version number in the WAL file?
> >
> I've been going through the WAL code, trying to understand it and
> document it. I've found a number of minor problems and several major
> ones ("major" meaning "can't really fix without an incompatible file
> format change, hence initdb"). I've reported the major problems to
> the mailing lis
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, I was thinking a few things. Right now, if we update the
> > catversion.h, we will require a dump/reload. If we can update just the
> > WAL version stamp, that will allow us to fix WAL format problems without
> > requiring people to dump/relo
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I was thinking a few things. Right now, if we update the
> catversion.h, we will require a dump/reload. If we can update just the
> WAL version stamp, that will allow us to fix WAL format problems without
> requiring people to dump/reload.
Since
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a version number in the WAL file?
catversion.h will do fine, no?
> Can we put conditional code in there to create
> new log file records with an updated format?
The WAL stuff is *far* too complex already. I've spent a week studying
it and I
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is there a version number in the WAL file?
>
> catversion.h will do fine, no?
>
> > Can we put conditional code in there to create
> > new log file records with an updated format?
>
> The WAL stuff is *far* too complex already. I've spent a week
> I am *not* feeling good about pushing out an RC1 release candidate
> today.
>
> I've been going through the WAL code, trying to understand it and
> document it. I've found a number of minor problems and several major
> ones ("major" meaning "can't really fix without an incompatible file
> form
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> I am *not* feeling good about pushing out an RC1 release candidate
> today.
>
> I've been going through the WAL code, trying to understand it and
> document it. I've found a number of minor problems and several major
> ones ("major" meaning "can't really fix
I am *not* feeling good about pushing out an RC1 release candidate
today.
I've been going through the WAL code, trying to understand it and
document it. I've found a number of minor problems and several major
ones ("major" meaning "can't really fix without an incompatible file
format change, hen
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 08:53:31AM +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
...
> I think I've fixed this bug at least for MS-Access.
> You could get the latest win32 driver from
> ftp://ftp.greatbridge.org/pub/pgadmin/stable/psqlodbc.zip .
> Please try it.
How can I just install that file? (ie., M$ Access
> -Original Message-
> From: Hiroshi Inoue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 March 2001 02:05
> To: Patrick Welche
> Cc: Tom Lane; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] Re: [HACKERS] Release in 2 weeks ...
>
>
> Patric
20 matches
Mail list logo
