At 11:59 AM 26-04-2000 -0500, Ed Loehr wrote:
Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
In a message to Ed Loehr and pgsql-general, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
Then you do a commit on both, and you end up with two rows.
This is dissapointing indeed! What this means is that Postgresql
transactions are, in fact,
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
You should call SET TRANSACTION immediately after BEGIN.
Note that SET TRANSACTION .. is per transaction command.
PostgreSQL's SERIALIZABLE isolation level would allow both inserts.
READ COMMITED isolation level wouldn't allow A's inserts.
Even if I call SET after
Hi!
how can I setup sequences to have the current-value reset in case
of an Transaction rollback.
My intension is to get an contignous numbering of the rows.
Currently in case of an Rollback one number is skipped since
the record itself is not inserted but the counter is not reset.
Elmar
In a message to and Hiroshi Inoue pgsql-general, Ed Loehr wrote:
-- Within transaction A --
BEGIN;
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
-- Within transaction B --
BEGIN;
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
INSERT INTO
Patches to [EMAIL PROTECTED], discussion at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.
Of course the documentation is more or less frozen but feel free to
contribute anyway for the next release.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Michael S. Kelly wrote:
Hey folks,
Been gettin' situated with 7.0 RC1 and I've come across
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Jim Mercer wrote:
- queries via localhost (unix domain sockets) should assume that the pg_user
is the same as the unix user running the process.
There's no way for the server to determine the system user name of the
other end of a domain socket; at least no one has
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
PostgreSQL's SERIALIZABLE isolation level would allow both inserts.
READ COMMITED isolation level wouldn't allow A's inserts.
As I mentioned in another posting,PostgreSQL's SERIALIZABLE
isolation level isn't completely serializable and it's same as
Hi,
Thank You for your reply.
BUT as i mentioned the date_time field is VARCHAR.
So if i use:
date = '01/4/2000' and date '01/5/2000'
this won't compare the dates it will compare Strings.
so '02/4/2000' will be GREATER than '01/5/2000'.
That is why i need a DATE TYPE for my field that can be
-Original Message-
From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 4:46 PM
To: Hiroshi Inoue
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
PostgreSQL's SERIALIZABLE isolation level would allow both inserts.
READ COMMITED isolation level wouldn't
At 11:03 AM 27-04-2000 +0300, Andras Balogh wrote:
Hi,
Thank You for your reply.
BUT as i mentioned the date_time field is VARCHAR.
So if i use:
date = '01/4/2000' and date '01/5/2000'
this won't compare the dates it will compare Strings.
so '02/4/2000' will be GREATER than '01/5/2000'.
That
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Jim Mercer wrote:
- queries via localhost (unix domain sockets) should assume that the pg_user
is the same as the unix user running the process.
There's no way for the server to determine the system user name of
Ok so I'm biased to how MySQL does it (it's simple and has a good chance of
working well). Yes it shifts a lot to the application. But if people have
to do things like do their multiple select for updates in the right order
(to prevent deadlocks), they might as well start using something like
Carsten Huettl schrieb:
Hello,
After I altered a table in my database I am not able to connect the
Database with the postgresql-odbc-driver (v.6.40.00.09)
What I get is:
ODBC--call failed.
The Access-Table only shows col-names but nothing else.
It is a RH6.1Linux with PostgreSQL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...the snapshot is taken from the first DML statement...
That explains it. I missed that in the docs, and was mislead by the
SERIALIZABLE doc sections.
Regards,
Ed Loehr
Sorry to ask this as I'm sure it's passed throught here but I'm also sure
I just looked at the messages briefly and then deleted them becuase I
didn't think I'd ever need the information.
I'm working on a program that will run on a MS Windows platform and I
want it to use a database
Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
...It is NOT required that the outcome be
equivalent to the result that would be observed by running the
transactions in a particular order, such as in the order they were
actually started. The outcome is only required to be equivalent to some
(arbitrary) order.
16 matches
Mail list logo
