Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL

2003-08-12 Thread Bruce Momjian
Well, I have no mention of this problem in the TODO list, so I would like to get a good description of why it isn't working. Looking at the code, I see upper() is defined in oracle_compat.c (you would think it would be more standard), and it calls toupper(), so it probably works on single-bytes e

Re: [GENERAL] Update of foreign key values

2003-08-12 Thread Ron Johnson
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 18:40, Roderick A. Anderson wrote: > On 11 Aug 2003, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > Maybe this will do it: > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/sql-set-constraints.html > > Saw this but my take was it required the original constraint to be created > with the deferred(able

Re: [GENERAL] Join faster than single table query

2003-08-12 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:48:21PM +0200, ruben wrote: > Hi: > > I must have missed something, but how is it possible that a join on > tables A and B is faster (a lot faster) than a query to one of the > tables with the same conditions? > > The problem seems to be with the query plan, in the ca

Re: [GENERAL] multiple insert into's (may be NEWBIE question)

2003-08-12 Thread Williams, Travis L, NPONS
Thanks.. Travis -Original Message- From: scott.marlowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:16 PM To: Williams, Travis L Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [GENERAL] multiple insert into's (may be NEWBIE question) On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Williams, Travis L, NPONS wrote

Re: [GENERAL] Setting/Accessing Internal data

2003-08-12 Thread Joe Conway
Roberto M. wrote: If I was to write a c program and wished to set and access an internal variable as a flag for my program so that I can read it in or set it? I have been researching for days now and I have come across nothing that helps only knowledge that it is possible. It isn't clear to me ex

Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta1 "failed to create socket: Address family not

2003-08-12 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> But I still wonder whether we shouldn't suppress the message entirely, >> at least for EAFNOSUPPORT errors. > If we suppress it entirely, there is no user-visible report that IPv6 > isn't enabled on this computer, though if your kernel