(back on list)
> As far as I can see, it is the same. My examples come from Cannan and Otten
> on SQL92, but I read the spec for SQL99 and I can't see any obvious
> change, except that INTERVAL YEAR TO YEAR (and any other X TO X) is no
> longer allowed. (I take it you have a copy of SQL99?)
W
Folks,
We have a database with several very large tables. When trying
to pg_dump we get the above error, e.g.:
pg_dump -v wsdb
-- saving database definition
-- last builtin oid is 18539
-- reading user-defined types
-- reading user-defined functions
-- reading user-defined aggregates
-
It took me a while to figure out what was going on, but I think I've
figured it out.
Lets say you have your own variable length datatype called
'MY_DATATYPE'.
CREATE TABLE test_table (myint integer, mydata MY_DATATYPE);
INSERT INTO test_table VALUES (1);
At this point, I'd expect there to be on
Barry Lind wrote:
>
> I agree with Hannu, that:
>
> * make SQL changes to allow PREPARE/EXECUTE in main session, not only
> in SPI
A more ambitious project would be
* develop an ANSI standard SQL/CLI compatible postgreSQL client library,
change wire protocol and SQL language as needed ;)
I agree with Hannu, that:
* make SQL changes to allow PREPARE/EXECUTE in main session, not only
in SPI
is an important feature to expose out to the client. My primary reason
is a perfomance one. Allowing the client to parse a SQL statement once
and then supplying bind values for arguments
> we need to control database changes within BEFORE triggers.
> There is no problem with triggers called by update, but there is
> a problem with triggers called by insert.
>
> We strongly need to know the oid of a newly inserted tuple.
> In this case, we use tg_newtuple of the TriggerData struct
Serguei Mokhov wrote:
>
> and why the PostgreSQL project originally is being
> released under the BSD-like license? Just curious...
Berkeley usually releases their free projects under BSD licence ;)
There have been some discussion about changing it, but it has never got
enough support.
--
On 30 Aug 2001 21:35:42 -0400, you wrote:
>"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Are you sure? I thought all that autocommit meant was that a statement that
>> is not enclosed within a begin/commit is automatically committed after it is
>> run. So, in the this case all three q
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
> Are you sure?
Yes.
> I thought all that autocommit meant was that a statement that
> is not enclosed within a begin/commit is automatically committed after it is
> run. So, in the this case all three queries will be independent, unless the
> first statements i
