Hi.
A few weeks (months?) ago I made a patch to the postgres
backend to get back the number of realized moves after
a MOVE command. So if I issue a "MOVE 100 IN cusrorname",
but there was only 66 rows left, I get back not only "MOVE",
but "MOVE 66". If the 100 steps could be realized, then
"MOVE
Hi!
I had very funny problems with "make install" of the
CVS version. The clue was a bit strange behavior of bash
(/bin/sh is only a link in my debian).
The whole thing is about wildcard expansion: there's an
option called nocaseglob. I never heard of it before,
but this was the cause for th
-- Hi Kevin, and everyone!
--
-- I don't think that I only found a minor bug compared to
-- the other you wrote in your last letter: the backend crash
-- is caused by the same CHECK constraint in the child table.
--
-- However, for you without time to analyzing Kevin's huge
-- scheme, here is th
Hi everybody!
I tried, and it works: the current CVS version really runs
happily the query what sent to heaven our 7.1 version of the
backend.
Kevin: your original complex schema also runs smoothly.
Thanks for our mindful developers!
Regards,
Baldvin
I think Jan wrote:
> Sorry, I missed
Hello (mainly developer) folks!
Probably Kevin really found a bug.
When I saw his words in $50, I immediately started to look around his
problem... You probably don't think that as a student here, in Hungary I
live half a month for $50 :-
So I simplified his given schema as much as I needed
Hello!
I would like to ask your opinion and about your intuitions
on the question: is it secure to use the cvs version
of postgres instead of 7.1? (The more specific question
is below...)
Sorry for enlarging the traffic of th elist with this
possibly non-interesting question.
To be more precise
Hi!
I would like to ask you, the developers about the following
question.
Because I wanted to know after issuing a MOVE, that how many
steps did really happen, I made a patch, and now the backend
not only replies "MOVE" but "MOVE XXX", where XXX is the
number of steps. It needed only a few new l
Hello.
Could somebody explain me the mechanism in the backend,
which is responsible for the followings. (I tried to
look around snapshots, but couldnt figure out th answer).
In a transaction, isol. read comitted, a select from a
table can see the comitted changes by others, but
a previously decl
Hello
A few weeks ago I was interested in this question. My results were:
- Yes, this is a sorrowful but true fact that if you enable access to
someone to a database, she is automatically enabled to create
objects in it.
- Yes, the developers know it, and they said: there is a patch existing
