Hi !
I have a big problem : all my datas are unavailable.
When I do a vaccuum, that ok there are rows.
When I do a "SELECT" or "\d", nothing.
One of you told me that could be that I reached the max transaction ID.
My pg_log is very big (1 Go !!)
How could I retrieve my datas ?
Of course I
I also use the ODBC driver and have noticed some things that could be
improved and some bugs
Since it's open source I was thinking of getting the source code and making
some changes myself
Has anyone done this? My knowledge of C is passable so maybe I could do
this?
The ODBC
Is there any chance of adding a note about this to the docs? It does not
seem to be documented anywhere! Maybe a note in ALTER TABLE
(sql-altertable.htm) and changing the FAQ slightly to mention what happen to
triggers, views, constraints etc.
Regards
Ben
-Original Message-
From:
Quoting Raymond Chui [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My system time zone (TZ) is set to US Eastern Standard Time is -5 hours
of
GMT time
I set
export PGTZ=GMT
then go to psql do
insert into a_table (a_column) values ('2001-02-08 18:30:00+00');
select a_column from a_table;
will get result
Title: RE: [GENERAL] transaction safety
Hi,
Well, the number is 'locked', because once it's given to you, that's it, it's gone from the 'list of available numbers' (i.e.: the sequence). However, between the insert, and the read of the ID, if another transaction performs an insert, it does
Quoting Culley Harrelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm in the process of implementing connection pooling
and the setup I'm using (http://www.javaexchange.com -
really slick!) has settings for min # connections and
max # connection. Any suggestions on where I should
set these values? min=2,
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 09:56:18AM -, Michael Ansley wrote:
Hi,
Well, the number is 'locked', because once it's given to you, that's it,
it's gone from the 'list of available numbers' (i.e.: the sequence).
However, between the insert, and the read of the ID, if another transaction
Title: RE: [GENERAL] transaction safety
OK, someone want to answer this? I have always been under the impression that Postgres would not block under these circumstances, however, this is clearly blocking, for no apparently good reason.
I have just run a test on my own server, and this
I have seen this before myself, and I agree it is less then optimal. I
would think that it's a place where referential integrity should be used.
Either don't allow you to drop the user until all permissions are removed,
or automatically remove all permissions, cascade delete type of thing.
Has anyone submitted anything?
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2:37 PM
To: PostgreSQL-announce; PostgreSQL-general
Subject: [GENERAL] O'Reilly Conference Proposals
There is less than one week left to submit
Hello,
(posting here, as I'm not sure this is a bug)
I've run into an interesting issue with v7.0.3's psql (connecting to a
7.0.3 backend, of course): while trying to do password auth, the client
segfaults. It'll connect fine when the db is configured to 'trust' local
connections.
Following
Hey guys, another strange question here..
If I query and order by a field and there are duplicate values in that
field, what makes one return before the other? Just the first one that PG
comes to on the disk is displayed first or is something else looked at to
determine the order?
Example :
A further extension of this..
What might I be able to additionally order by so that the most recently
updated rows get ordered above everything else (within the order by
ordernum).. Using the same example :
ordernum | fieldname | oid
--+---+-
1 |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also use the ODBC driver and have noticed some things that could be
improved and some bugs
Since it's open source I was thinking of getting the source code and making
some changes myself
Has anyone done this?
I've half(or more) done it. I hope I could
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 05:58:35PM -0500, Mitch Vincent wrote:
I just set the row with j.inv_id to 1, I'd like it to be ordered above the
row with j.jobtitle in it -- is that possible?
make a trigger that updates a time stamp and order by that?
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a
Mitch Vincent wrote:
A further extension of this..
What might I be able to additionally order by so that the most recently
updated rows get ordered above everything else (within the order by
ordernum).. Using the same example :
ordernum | fieldname | oid
John Madden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've run into an interesting issue with v7.0.3's psql (connecting to a
7.0.3 backend, of course): while trying to do password auth, the client
segfaults. It'll connect fine when the db is configured to 'trust' local
connections.
Hmm. Maybe some local
Sure, I was just wondering if there was some PG internal value I could use
(and I should have said that in my email)..
Thanks for the suggestion though, I appreciate it..
-Mitch
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Castle" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13,
"Matt Friedman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We are having what seems like a baffling problem to me.
On occasion, our SELECTs will return zero rows when we know with certainty
that they should be returning at least some rows. No error occurs, the
select just behaves as if the db is empty or
"Mitch Vincent" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just set the row with j.inv_id to 1, I'd like it to be ordered above the
row with j.jobtitle in it -- is that possible?
Not unless you add a field with an update sequence number, or some such,
and then explicitly use that field as a second ORDER BY
Since I cannot return a set of values (namely rows from a table) from a
function, I thought I could create a temporary table where I could place
the resulting information.
Unfortunately I have a big problem. If I create this table and run the
same procedure again (during the same session) I'll
It's version 7.0.3
Here's the output for the selects using explain below.
We had planned to do all of the optimization later. We just haven't had time
to get to it yet. Could that be the problem?
Anyhow here's the info. Please let me know if you need more information.
Appreciatively,
Matt
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:03, you wrote:
It's version 7.0.3
Here's the output for the selects using explain below.
We had planned to do all of the optimization later. We just haven't had
time to get to it yet. Could that be the problem?
Anyhow here's the info. Please let me know if you need
This has the same smell about it as the one a couple of days ago
where the CR characters in a file loaded into the database using COPY were
upsetting things.
I didn't use COPY but...
I used a dump created by pg_dump. We had some problems with the database a
while ago so I recreated it using
Hi all,
I've just started starting a project on Sourceforge to contain
PostgreSQL
information about known bugs for specific versions, work-arounds, and
any
other general stuff that doesn't belong in a FAQ.
Does anyone have anything they'd like to contribute or similar?
At
I am not sure how many people have looked at my book on Amazon.com, but
I have received my first negative book review:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201703319/o/qid%3D976592762/sr%3D8-1/ref%3Daps%5Fsr%5Fb%5F1%5F3/104-0116316-8891907
I guess everyone isn't going to like my book.
I have it and have found it very useful.
Matt Friedman
Spry New Media
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Momjian" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "PostgreSQL-general" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:06 PM
Subject: Bad book review
I am not sure how many people have
There is less than one week left to submit PostgreSQL proposals for the
O'Reilly Open Source Convention in San Diego in July.
You can learn more about it at:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/oreilly/
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
28 matches
Mail list logo
