Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can someone comment on this?
This is unfixable as long as nextval() and friends depend on string
parameters to represent table references. There are suggestions in
our archives about how we might move to a more Oracle-like syntax
(ie, table.nextval), wh
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone have an idea on this one?
There's a date + integer operator, but no integer + date operator.
Yawn...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our e
Gonzalo Paniagua Javier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems that postgres allows writing to a read-only blob opened like:
> fd = lo_open (cnc, oid, INV_READ);
AFAICS from the code, INV_READ/WRITE attached to lo_open only determine
the kind of lock taken on the LO (shared or exclusive). N
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Anyone have an idea on this one?
>
> There's a date + integer operator, but no integer + date operator.
> Yawn...
Uh, "Yawn" means we don't need to fix it, or "oh, here's another one"?
--
Bruce Momjian| h
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's a date + integer operator, but no integer + date operator.
>> Yawn...
> Uh, "Yawn" means we don't need to fix it, or "oh, here's another one"?
It means "I can't get excited about it." The docs don't claim that we
have such an
Oh, OK.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> There's a date + integer operator, but no integer + date operator.
> >> Yawn...
>
> > Uh, "Yawn" means we don't need to fix it
Can someone comment on this?
---
Andreas Hinz wrote:
> If PostgreSQL failed to compile on your computer or you found a bug that
> is likely to be specific to one platform then please fill out this form
> and e-mail it to [EM
Anyone have an idea on this one?
---
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> It is maybe not bug, but I didn't find any warning about this behavior.
>
> select current_date + 1; -- ok
> select 1 + current_date; -- not
>
> ERRO
Kevin Houle wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Houle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is it just me, or are both sides reading waiting for the other
side to send data?
Sure looks like it. Could it be an OpenSSL bug?
One more data point. The DBD::Pg 'lo_extract' function works
fine across SSL. There is n
Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Houle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is it just me, or are both sides reading waiting for the other
side to send data?
Sure looks like it. Could it be an OpenSSL bug?
One more data point. The DBD::Pg 'lo_extract' function works
fine across SSL. There is no issue with large obj
Kevin Houle wrote:
One more data point. The DBD::Pg 'lo_extract' function works
fine across SSL. There is no issue with large objects >= 32K
using 'lo_extract'. So that casts doubt on it being an OpenSSL
issue. Is there a different code path within libpq.so to move
data from the server to the clie
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, andrea gelmini wrote:
> test=# SELECT * FROM sal_emp WHERE pay_by_quarter[1:4] *= 1;
> ERROR: Unable to identify an operator '*=' for types 'integer[]' and 'integer'
> You will have to retype this query using an explicit cast
I see from those docs:
However, this
andrea gelmini wrote:
test=# SELECT * FROM sal_emp WHERE pay_by_quarter[1:4] *= 1;
ERROR: Unable to identify an operator '*=' for types 'integer[]' and 'integer'
You will have to retype this query using an explicit cast
There's nothing wrong with the docs (well, at least not with respe
Hi all,
I'm in trouble with examples in
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/interactive/arrays.html.
Step by step:
-cut here---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ createdb test
CREATE DATABASE
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ psql test
Welcome to psql 7.3.3, the PostgreSQL interac
Hi!
It seems that postgres allows writing to a read-only blob opened like:
fd = lo_open (cnc, oid, INV_READ);
I've attached a simple test case and the Makefile to build it.
I'm using postgresql 7.3.3 (7.3.3-1 is the debian package version).
Is that the intended behaviour or is it a bug
Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Houle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is it just me, or are both sides reading waiting for the other
side to send data?
Sure looks like it. Could it be an OpenSSL bug?
Well, redhat-9 ships with openssl-0.9.7a so I tried it
with openssl-0.9.7b and lo_read still caused a read()
lo
Is this patch valid for inclusion in jdbc?
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Palle Girgensohn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3
> The lower the number the more severe it is.
>
> Short Description
> if old
17 matches
Mail list logo
