Title: RE: [HACKERS] tell Bugtraq about 7.2.2
oops, sorry your correct.
- Stuart
> -Original Message-
> From: Gavin Sherry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 28 August 2002 15:57
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: Henshall, Stuart - WCP; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>
Title: RE: [HACKERS] tell Bugtraq about 7.2.2
No idea sorry :(
- Stuart
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 28 August 2002 15:36
> To: Henshall, Stuart - WCP
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: [HACKE
Title: tell Bugtraq about 7.2.2
Does someone from core want to inform bugtraq about 7.2.2?
Cheers,
- Stuart
Westcountry Design & Print,
Heron Road, Sowton, Exeter.
EX2 7NF - also at -
17 Brest Road, Derriford,
Plymouth. PL6 5AA
England
www.westcountry-design-print.co.uk
I believe LOCK TABLE IN EXCLUSIVE MODE should block everything but
selects, but it locks for the entire transaction I think. Maybe in tcl you
could create your own locking using global variables. If the spin lock code
is available to user functions you might be able to use that.
Alternativley, in
> "Dwayne Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, for one I have no idea what cygwin is, or what it does to
> > your system, or what security vulnerabilities it might add to your
> > system. It comes with alot of stuff that I may or may not need, but
> > what components I need to r
> -Original Message-
> From: Hiroshi Inoue [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 2:37 AM
> To: Henshall, Stuart - WCP
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RE: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend)
>
> "Henshall
Would it be possible to offer an option for the OID column to get its value
from an int4 primary key (settable on a per table basis maybe)?
- Stuart
> -Original Message-
> From: Hiroshi Inoue [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 7:31 AM
> To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB
>
Don't know about JDBC, but couldn't you just use UPDATE SET
= WHERE xmin= AND primarykey= and
get the number of altered records? (if its zero then you know somethings
wrong and can investigate further)
- Stuart
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Cramer [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thu
Apologises if I've missed something, but isn't that the same xmin that ODBC
uses for row versioning?
- Stuart
> Currently, the XMIN/XMAX command counters are used only by the current
> transaction, and they are useless once the transaction finishes and take
> up 8 bytes on disk.
When I downlaod a full tarball I want it all, I'm greedy like that.
;)
If it is to be split up as standard I believe problems will arise with
different versions being used together (by me most likley...). Also IMHO it
will not necessarily be relised the docs have not been down loaded which
10 matches
Mail list logo
