Hello,
this fails with "duplicate key value":
CREATE TABLE x (
i INT NOT NULL UNIQUE
);
INSERT INTO x (i) VALUES (1), (2), (3);
UPDATE x SET i = i + 1;
are there any plans to make this work?
--
Roman Neuhauser
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgr
Ragnar wrote:
Reguardless of the issue whether pl/pgsql could be expected to
optimize this case, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario
where this kind of coding makes sense.
I understand that in some cases on would like to do this with
a *variable* to simplify logic, but what possible gain c
Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would submit that in that situation, it would be
reasonable for a user to expect my suggested syntax to still use the
indicated indexes.
The only thing that will make that work is if "indexed_col IS NULL" were
an indexable condition, which it isn't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
you're still gonna lose because those are variables not constants ...
Well, that *is* what I'm hoping to do. I understand how (0 IS NULL) is
different from (variable IS NULL), but isn't it reasonable to expect
that PG could evaluate that expression o
Tom Lane wrote:
Well, you could update --- 8.2 contains code to recognize that the IS
NULL expression is constant, but prior releases do not.
That's excellent to hear -- I'd missed that in my perusing of the
changelogs between 8.0.x and 8.2. That does give me one more reason to
upgrade. It
Hello,
I've been using PostgreSQL for a few years and mostly love it. Aside
from a few (perceived, anyway) annoying limitations in PL/PGSQL (which I
almost exclusively am using for db interaction), I'm very satisfied with it.
I ran across this problem several months back and decided to blow
I've started using pgpool and while everything appears to be working,
I've been getting a lot of the following errors in my logs:
ERROR: pid 14761: pool_read: EOF encountered
This seems to be simple enough - the client/user probably just canceled
the request and isn't anything to be conc
