On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 13:16, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2003 at 13:07, Andreas Jung wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 13:02, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > On 29 Jul 2003 at 12:48, Andreas Jung wrote:
> > > > Our experience was that the complete table has been locked (Solaris)
> > >
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 13:02, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2003 at 12:48, Andreas Jung wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 12:42, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > On 29 Jul 2003 at 12:33, Andreas Jung wrote:
> > > > we are running Postgres 7.3.3 successfully on our portal sites
> > > > und
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 01:07:57PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
>
> This problem appeard in 7.3.2 but it seems to have been fixed in 7.3.3.
> Our administrator complained that there has not been a notice in the
> CHANGELOG...so I am hestitating about choosing Postgres vs. Oracle :-)
I think your ad
Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 13:02, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>>> Our experience was that the complete table has been locked (Solaris)
>>> but row-level locking was working with Linux.
>>
>> Whoa!! That's something. How did you conclude it is locked. If you can
On 29 Jul 2003 at 13:07, Andreas Jung wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 13:02, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 29 Jul 2003 at 12:48, Andreas Jung wrote:
> > > Our experience was that the complete table has been locked (Solaris)
> > > but row-level locking was working with Linux.
> >
> > Whoa!! Tha
On 29 Jul 2003 at 12:48, Andreas Jung wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 12:42, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 29 Jul 2003 at 12:33, Andreas Jung wrote:
> > > we are running Postgres 7.3.3 successfully on our portal sites
> > > under Solaris. For a new project we have the requirement that
> > > N p
