[SQL] table inheritance and foreign key troubles

eration just require differing syntax, because the referenced field is inherited from another table, or is this not possible? Kevin Way ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregi

[SQL] trigger trouble -- procedure not found

s for the life of me. Kevin Way ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [SQL] trigger trouble -- procedure not found

Thank you. Later checking showed that these requirements were listed in the first sentence of the relevant page. Everything works like a champ now. I've made a small donation to the EFF and to the Red Cross as a minor thanks for your prompt help. Kevin Way ---(e

Re: [SQL] Bug?: Update on ancestor for a row of a child

ECK constraints from my child tables, and I'm hoping some genius will solve the problem by the time I'm looking to deploy. -Kevin Way ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send &

Re: [SQL] aggregate functions, COUNT

urces ...) Anyway, > there's no need for LIMIT 1 inside an EXISTS, because the planner > assumes that automatically. Thank you muchly, I did some profiling and SELECT EXISTS is indeed exactly what I wanted. -Kevin Way -- Kevin Way <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.overtone.o

Re: [SQL] Server crash caused by CHECK on child

s query-executing > -- about, so probably it takes uncomparable longer for me than for > -- a developer. That's my problem as well, though your example is vastly easier to trace than mine. -Kevin Way ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you

[SQL] confounding, incorrect constraint error

I've hit some really evil nastiness that is either a Postgres 7.1.3 bug, or signs of early-onset senility for me. I was having trouble with my database dying while inserting some values, and running some PL/pgSQL. The schema is as listed below, and I'm getting psql:fuck.sql:175: ERROR: ExecRep

Re: [SQL] confounding, incorrect constraint error

ix. (If none of these charities are acceptable, surely one can be found later that is acceptable to both parties). Again, I greatly appreciate any help, and I apologize that my test case is still fairly sizeable, despite being about 10% the size of the original code. -Kevin Way msg06097/pgp0

Re: [SQL] Bug?: Update on ancestor for a row of a child

> The problem is: when updating a row in an ancestor table, > which is really belongs to a child, there's something wrong > with the CHECK system. Well, I believe you found one minor problem. The bigger one is still lurking in the shadows though. To duplicate it, take my previous schema, and ad

[SQL] aggregate functions, COUNT

f how they work, I don't see how to make the function return before parsing all the results anyway, am I wrong here? Thanks for any help, or 2x4s, Kevin Way -- Kevin Way <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.overtone.org/ ---(end of broadcast)---