Bruce, the attached source reproduces this on 7.2, I don't have a
later version at hand to test if it's been fixed:
createdb floattest
echo CREATE TABLE tab1(col1 FLOAT); | psql floattest
ecpg insert-float.pgc
gcc insert-float.c -lecpg -lpq
./a.out floattest
results in:
col1: -0.06
OK, I have reproduced the problem on my machine:
#$ ./a.out floattest
col1: -0.06
*!*!* Error -220: No such connection NULL in line 21.
Wow, how did that A get into the query string:
insert into tab1 ( col1 ) values ( -6.002122251e-06A )
Quite
Bruce, after checking the libecpg source i'm fairly sure the problem
is due to the malloc buffer that the float is being sprintf'd into
being too small... It is always allocated 20 bytes but with a %.14g
printf specifier -6e-06 results in 20 characters:
-6.0e-06
and the NULL
Robert Grabowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 2
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
Bug at moving cursor on joined tables
Long Description
I have problems with moving cursors on joined tables. On Simple tables all is ok...
See example code...
Hi ,
I am extremely new to PostGreSql. If any one can please answer
this question of mine. I want to insert/update records into the
postgres database through C or perl code. The only condition is
that it should be efficient. Can anybody tell me the difference
between ecpg and libpq and which
Should the following piece of code cause an:
ERROR: unnamed referential integrity violation - key referenced
from b not found in a
Or should it work because the check is deferred and in the
end no violations are present?
create table a(ia int primary key);
create table b(ia int references a
/*
If a table contains two or more foreign keys referencing the same
table and they reference the same record in the other table, the
record's primary key cannot be changed even if the keys have the
ON UPDATE CASCADE clause (see example below). It will say that
referential integrity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have problems with moving cursors on joined tables.
Most of the more complex plan node types don't really support moving
backwards. I suppose it'd be an idea to error out rather than silently
doing the wrong thing. Fixing the code to actually do the right thing
is
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Matej Hollý wrote:
/*
If a table contains two or more foreign keys referencing the same
table and they reference the same record in the other table, the
record's primary key cannot be changed even if the keys have the
ON UPDATE CASCADE clause (see
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
Should the following piece of code cause an:
ERROR: unnamed referential integrity violation - key referenced
from b not found in a
Or should it work because the check is deferred and in the
end no violations are present?
It should work
From billy Tue Jun 11 13:38:51 2002
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
Should the following piece of code cause an:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
ERROR: unnamed referential integrity violation - key referenced
from b not found in a
Or should it work because the check is deferred and in the
end no violations are present?
It should work (and
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
ERROR: unnamed referential integrity violation - key referenced
from b not found in a
Or should it work because the check is deferred and in the
end no
On 2002.06.11 at 14:43:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It should work (and does in current sources). If you look in the archives
you should be able to get info on how to patch 7.2 (it came up recently,
I'm not sure which list, and Tom Lane sent the
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As a related side note. The other part of the original patch (the NOT
EXISTS in the upd/del no action trigger) was rejected. For match
full and match unspecified the same result can be reached by doing another
query which may be better than the
shangwu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
pg_ctl doesn't act properly for option -w
Long Description
If you start postmaster at some port number other than 5432 by pg_ctl with option -w,
it doesn't block any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
shangwu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
pg_ctl doesn't act properly for option -w
Long Description
If you start postmaster at some port number other than 5432 by pg_ctl with
The following patch fixes the problem. Applied.
---
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
Head of development branch (7.3devel) has a problem applying a comment to a
database at the sametime as the database is created using the
18 matches
Mail list logo
