Re: [SQL] is there a debian package for plperl?
Bruno Boettcher wrote: >Hello, >subject says it all, wanted to give plperl a try, but the lib doesn't >seem installed... now i installed all through debian packaging system, >and the lib surely is somewhere, but i didn't found it yet... > >so i anybody could point on on where to search for it... plperl failed to build in 7.0.2; however, I have just built 7.0.3-1 and plperl.so is now included again. This should be uploaded within the next day or so. -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47 6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47 GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C "Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart..."Psalms 24:3,4
[SQL] Cache look up failure
Hi All, I am trying to insert a tuple in the tuple, and i am getting
the follwoing error message:
fliprdb=# insert into collection(name, artist_id) values('El Baile
Aleman',2);
ERROR: fmgr_info: function 24011: cache lookup failed
Can someone help me out here. Thnaks in advance for your help.
Najm
[SQL] Cache lookup failure
Hi All,
I am trying to do a simple insert, and I am getting cache look failure
error.
Could someone explain what causing it? My query and error are given
below:
fliprdb=# insert into collection(name, artist_id) values('El Baile
Aleman',2);
ERROR: fmgr_info: function 24011: cache lookup failed
Thanks in advance for all your help
Regards
Najm
Re: [SQL] Cache look up failure
On 29 Nov 2000, at 17:56, Najm Hashmi wrote:
> Hi All, I am trying to insert a tuple in the tuple, and i am getting
> the follwoing error message:
>
> fliprdb=# insert into collection(name, artist_id) values('El Baile
> Aleman',2); ERROR: fmgr_info: function 24011: cache lookup failed
>
> Can someone help me out here. Thnaks in advance for your help.
> Najm
Normally, the cache lookup error means you've done something like:
create table
create view on table
drop table
re-create table (perhaps slightly different)
select * from view
since the view calls the table by oid, not by name, it can't find the
original table it uses.
for you, it sounds like
create function
create table-that-uses-function-somehow
drop function
re-create function
insert into table
Are there triggers on your table? Or rules? (Both of these might
refer to functions that might have been changed.) Or, perhaps you
have constraints on your table that call a function that you've re-
created.
If you have a backup of your database (ie pg_dumpall), you can
grep this file for 24011. This should be the original oid of the
function that is lost.
Good luck!
--
Joel Burton, Director of Information Systems -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Support Center of Washington (www.scw.org)
Re: [SQL] Cache lookup failure
Do you have any triggers, rules or check constraints defined on the
table? If so, you may have fallen pray to the thing that you cannot
drop and re-create a function that's used in a trigger without recreating
the trigger as well.
Stephan Szabo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Najm Hashmi wrote:
> Hi All,
> I am trying to do a simple insert, and I am getting cache look failure
> error.
> Could someone explain what causing it? My query and error are given
> below:
> fliprdb=# insert into collection(name, artist_id) values('El Baile
> Aleman',2);
> ERROR: fmgr_info: function 24011: cache lookup failed
> Thanks in advance for all your help
> Regards
> Najm
>
>
[SQL] subselects
I tried to do this: SELECT r , a , (SELECT u , re FROM dir WHERE u = a) , cdate FROM rep WHERE m IN(190); ... and I got: ERROR: Subselect must have only one field An explain shows that two subselects result in two queries, even thought they are accessing the same row. Why can subselects only have one field? Database version: PostgreSQL 7.0.3 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc egcs-2.91.66 -- Joseph Shraibman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com
[SQL] Subselect in join?
Ok- Seems I've seen this somewhere, but can't seem to get it to work. Is my memory flawed, or is this just not an implemented feature? SELECT * FROM (SELECT foo, bar FROM tfoobar) In english- is it not possible to to a subselect in a FROM clause? Kenn Kenn Thompson Senior Web Architect Adesta Communications Work: 402.233.7595 Cell: 402.210.6326
Re: [SQL] Subselect in join?
At 18:24 29/11/00 -0600, Kenn Thompson wrote: > >In english- is it not possible to to a subselect in a FROM clause? > In 7.1. Philip Warner| __---_ Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |/ - \ (A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) __---_ Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _ \ Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___ | Http://www.rhyme.com.au |/ \| |---- PGP key available upon request, | / and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
[SQL] delete rows
Hello All, After trying for two weeks to delete more than one row at the time from a form - checkbox input, I was told that the only way different rows would be inputed or changed with the information from the form would be with the INSERT command. This way the best alternative I could think of, would be to still have my table cart: For eaxmple: session_id|range_id|colour_id| -- 122 | 4004-4 | 4002 122 | 4004-4 | 4003 122 | 4004-4 | 4004 which contains all the items added to the cart. Then when a deletion is required, the information from the form would be inserted into "cartchange table": For example: session_id| colour_id|condition| - 122 | 4001 | yes 122 | 4002 | yes Now what I am trying to do is to delete the rows from cart that appear in the cartchange table. I have tried to join the tables , but I could not find the right query to delete similar rows. Am I missing something here ? Any help will be extremely appreciated. :) Astrid
Re: [SQL] delete rows
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Astrid Hexsel wrote: > After trying for two weeks to delete more than one row at the time from a form > - checkbox input, I was told that the only way different rows would be inputed > or changed with the information from the form would be with the INSERT command. > > > This way the best alternative I could think of, would be > to still have my table cart: > For eaxmple: > > session_id|range_id|colour_id| > -- > 122 | 4004-4 | 4002 > 122 | 4004-4 | 4003 > 122 | 4004-4 | 4004 > > which contains all the items added to the cart. > > Then when a deletion is required, the information from the form would be inserted > into "cartchange table": > For example: > > session_id| colour_id|condition| > - > 122 | 4001 | yes > 122 | 4002 | yes > > > Now what I am trying to do is to delete the rows > from cart that appear in the cartchange table. > > I have tried to join the tables , but I could not find the right query to delete > similar rows. Would a subselect work here? something like... delete from cart where exists (select * from cartchange where cartchange.session_id=cart.session_id and cartchange.colour_id=cart.colourid);
[SQL] alter table question
How do I alter a table to set a column to be not null? -- Joseph Shraibman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com
[SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding
Am I misunderstanding how to use rule w/conditionals, or is there a
bug in this?
--
I love to use Pgsql comments, but find the 'comment on field...'
language a bit of a pain for documenting a large database at the
last minute. So, I wrote a query that pulls together all the fields in a
database, w/descriptions (if any):
create view dev_col_comments as
select a.oid as att_oid,
relname,
attname,
description
from pg_class c,
pg_attribute a left outer join pg_description d on d.objoid=a.oid
where c.oid=a.attrelid
and (c.relkind='r' or c.relkind='v') and c.relname !~ '^pg_'
and attname not in ('xmax','xmin','cmax','cmin','ctid','oid','tableoid')
order by relname, attname;
[This uses pg7.1 syntax; you could rewrite for 7.0 w/o the 'v' for
views, and using a union rather than outer join.]
This works great. Feeling clever, I wrote two rules, so I could
update this and create comments. I need two rules, one if this is an
existing description (becoming an update to pg_description), one if
this not (becoming an insert to pg_description).
create rule dev_ins as on update to dev_col_comments where
old.description isnull do instead insert into pg_description ( objoid,
description) values (old.att_oid, new.description);
create rule dev_upd as on update to dev_col_comments where
old.description notnull do instead update pg_description set
description=new.description where objoid=old.att_oid;
This doesn't work: I get a "cannot update view w/o rule" error
message, both for fields where description was null, and for fields
where it wasn't null.
If I take out the "where old.description isnull" clause of dev_ins, it
works fine--but, only, of course, if I am sure to only pick new
descriptions. Or, if I take out the clause in dev_upd, it works too,
with the opposite caveat.
Is this a bug? Am I misunderstanding something about the way that
rule conditions should work? The docs are long but fuzzy on rules
(they seem to suggest, for instance, that "create rule foo on
update to table.column" will work, when this is not implemented yet,
so perhaps the docs are ahead of the implementation?)
Any help would be great!
I do read the pgsql lists, but always appreciate a cc, so I don't miss
any comments. TIA.
Thanks,
--
Joel Burton, Director of Information Systems -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Support Center of Washington (www.scw.org)
Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding
"Joel Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > create rule dev_ins as on update to dev_col_comments where > old.description isnull do instead insert into pg_description ( objoid, > description) values (old.att_oid, new.description); > create rule dev_upd as on update to dev_col_comments where > old.description notnull do instead update pg_description set > description=new.description where objoid=old.att_oid; > This doesn't work: I get a "cannot update view w/o rule" error > message, both for fields where description was null, and for fields > where it wasn't null. Hm. Perhaps the "cannot update view" test is too strict --- it's not bright enough to realize that the two rules together cover all cases, so it complains that you *might* be trying to update the view. As the code stands, you must provide an unconditional DO INSTEAD rule to implement insertion or update of a view. I'm not sure this is a big problem, though, because the solution is simple: provide an unconditional rule with multiple actions. For example, I think this will work: create rule dev_upd as on update to dev_col_comments do instead ( insert into pg_description (objoid, description) select old.att_oid, new.description WHERE old.description isnull; update pg_description set description=new.description where objoid = old.att_oid; ) but I haven't tried it... regards, tom lane
