"D. Hageman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not sure that is wise to do the pg_table_is_visible check on those
> commands. In my humble opinion, those commands are for understanding the
> layout/structure/nature of the database. If you can't see all your
> namespaces that you set in your s
On Sunday 19 January 2003 01:16, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am heading to Atlanta for the one week training class. We have
> thirteen people signed up, and I think that is a good number.
Atlanta, huh. You'll be less than four hours from me. I lived and worked
(and went to school) in Atlanta from
I am heading to Atlanta for the one week training class. We have
thirteen people signed up, and I think that is a good number.
I return on Friday, but leave again on Wednesday for two weeks in Tokyo
and Brussels, returning February 11.
I should have connectivity for most of this period, but it w
Assume a database with a couple of namespaces. Give two of these
namespaces the names test_1 and test_2. Under these namespaces create a
couple of tables with the names: example, example_2, example_3.
set search_path to test_1, test_2;
In the psql client, using a standard \d you will only se
I vote for not showing 'NO ACTION', so long as it's the SQL standard
default...
Chris
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Remember how we made DEFERRABLE/DEFERRED not print if the constraint was
> the default. Shouldn't we do the same for MATCH and ON UPDATE/ON DELETE
> sections of the
On Saturday 18 January 2003 11:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... Why? If a user doesn't need the features of 7.x.x, and the codebase
> > is working well for him/her, why should said user/DBA feel compelled to
> > go through who knows what mechanations to upgrade
Remember how we made DEFERRABLE/DEFERRED not print if the constraint was
the default. Shouldn't we do the same for MATCH and ON UPDATE/ON DELETE
sections of the constraint in pg_get_constraintdef()?
Doing \d I see:
test=> \d sales
Table "public.sales"
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... Why? If a user doesn't need the features of 7.x.x, and the codebase is
> working well for him/her, why should said user/DBA feel compelled to go
> through who knows what mechanations to upgrade to the latest version?
Because there are unfixable bugs
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
With ever more larger businesses adopting PostgreSQL, and that leading
on to more places having several versions of PostgreSQL in operation
simultaneously (i.e. development vs production) we're probably going to
need to give psql the ability to handle whichever versi
