That function looks great, but what happens if you need to return 1
million records? Wouldn't you exhaust all the memory in the server? Or
can you stream it somehow?
I have an actual libpq program which performs a query against a server,
and will stream out the XML, so the number of records has
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
> The question is the requirement of a GPL library to build a contrib project.
> My SOAP/XML function will probably require my LGPL library as there is a
> lot of code I have written that I wo
mlw writes:
> Given a HTTP formatted query:
> GET "http://localhost:8181/pgmuze?query=select+*+from+zsong+limit+2";
>
> The output is entered below.
That looks a lot like the SQL/XML-style output plus a SOAP header. Below
is the output that I get from the SQL/XML function that I wrote. A simple
John Liu writes:
> make[4]: Leaving directory `/emrxdbs/postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/parser'
> cc -O2 -qmaxmem=16384 -qsrcmsg -qlonglong -I../../../src/interfaces/libpq -I
> ../../../src/include -I/usr/local/include -DBINDIR=\"/emrxdbs/pgsql/bin\" -
> c -o pg_dump.o pg_dump.c
> 2681 |
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 16:31, mlw wrote:
> I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
> The question is the requirement of a GPL library to build a contrib project.
>
> My SOAP/XML function will probably require my LGPL library as there is a
> lot of code I have written
I wrote:
>
> Other times, I get the more ominous
> DEBUG: rename from
C:\postgres\peer_direct\data/pg_xlog/0003
> to C:\postgres\peer_direct\data/pg_xlog/000A
(initialization
> of log file 0, segment 10) failed: Permission denied.
>
> If this happens about 10 times I will
I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
The question is the requirement of a GPL library to build a contrib project.
My SOAP/XML function will probably require my LGPL library as there is a
lot of code I have written that I would need to implement it.
Is there any
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 14:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Perhaps as a workaround you could invent a standard indentation format and
> > format the rules automatically that way, so that users will be able to
> > find everything in the same place automatically a
>
> I can certainly imagine cases for processing where having the field
> names and other metadata up front (maybe add type info, nullable, etc
> instead of just "undefined") would be useful.
>
> here's another question:
>
> If the intention is to use field names as (local) tag names, how will
>
I can certainly imagine cases for processing where having the field names
and other metadata up front (maybe add type info, nullable, etc instead of
just "undefined") would be useful.
here's another question:
If the intention is to use field names as (local) tag names, how will you
handle the ca
Out of curiousity, what is the purpose of putting the qry:ROWSET
description into the message at all (header or not)? Isn't it a
perfectly valid SOAP message (and just as parseable) with that removed?
I freely admit to not being a soap expert, but similar SOAP
messages I generate from queries see
> In fact, I had proposed a simpler UNDO capability that revisited tuples
> and set their XID to a fixed aborted XID to clean up aborted
> subtransactions, but most now like the multiple XID solution.
I think for the implicit subtransactions that we will want
(with error codes comming) using a d
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This isn't really an issue for 64 bit hardware is it?
Is "int" 64 bits on such a machine? The ones I've dealt with chose to
set int = 32bits, long = 64bits. If they don't do that then they have
a problem with not having any native C 32bit type (and p
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > BTW it does not 2 gig, but 1 gig (remember that we do sortmembytes *
> > 2) .
>
> Good point. Probably that particular calculation should be
> "sortmembytes * 2.0" to force it to double before it can overflow.
>
I have been testing the postgresql Peer Direct port. I've used both the
released binary and my own compiled version and get the same behavior.
Please not that this is for testing purposes and I am not asking for
support.
I'm running an import routine which moves records from a cobol database
to p
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Would it be possible and sensible to store the original view definition
>> for future use, such as we do for functions? Perhaps a new catalog
>> (pg_source?) could store these and other definitions such as rules for
>> use?
> Not too obvi
Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MSSQL7:
> SELECT t1.f1
> FROM t1 {INNER | LEFT | RIGHT} JOIN t2 ON (t1.f2=t2.f2)
> GROUP BY f1
> all run without an error.
> ORACLE7: JOIN syntax not available, but
> SELECT t1.f1 FROM t1, t2 WHERE (t1.f2=t2.f2) GROUP BY f1;
> SELECT t1.f1 FRO
Hi all,
When using pg_get_viewdef(oid), the view definition is returned in a
reconstructed form (I assume) with all formatting removed. This is a
pain for apps like pgAdmin, that allow the user to edit their views,
particularly with very large ones.
Would it be possible and sensible to store the
Hannu Krosing wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] kirjutas E, 31.03.2003 kell 19:52:
Actually, as far as I am aware, the header is for metadata, i.e. it is the
place to describe the data being returned.
Did you read the SOAP spec ?
yes
The description of the fields
isn't the actual data retrie
Thanks Andreas.
Regards, Dave.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 March 2003 23:47
> To: Dave Page
> Subject: Re: CVS Access
>
>
> OK Dave,
>
> I committed today's changes to cvs.
> In the meantime, there were some changes, regarding query
Hi John,
Marco Pratesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a step-by-step guide for compiling
PostgreSQL on AIX a while ago:
http://techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/CompilingForAIX
Hope that helps.
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
John Liu wrote:
I config and make the 7.3.2 on
the one works, t
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:29:46 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Just out of curiosity --- does MSSQL treat "f1" and "t1.f1" as different
>in the RIGHT JOIN variant case I mentioned?
MSSQL7:
SELECT t1.f1
FROM t1 {INNER | LEFT | RIGHT} JOIN t2 ON (t1.f2=t2.f2)
GROUP BY f1
all run with
22 matches
Mail list logo
