Tom Lane wrote:
One thing that bothered me is that my reading of the SQL99 draft
disallows the UNDER syntax you are using. I read:
table definition ::=
CREATE [ table scope ] TABLE table name
table contents source
[ ON COMMIT table
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
table contents source ::=
table element list
| OF user-defined type
[ subtable clause ]
[ table element list ]
to me it seems that only this is OR-d :
Hannu Krosing writes:
table contents source ::=
table element list
| OF user-defined type
[ subtable clause ]
[ table element list ]
to me it seems that only this is OR-d : table element list | OF
Any ideas on why this error would occur after dropping an existing
database and than re-creating it (createdb)? The only work around so far
is to completely destroy the postgres instance and start over.
It appears that the pg_database may be getting currupted.
Sandy Barnes
Honeywell
"Barnes, Sandy (Sandra)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any ideas on why this error would occur after dropping an existing
database and than re-creating it (createdb)?
I assume what you're really talking about is
Database 'xxx', OID nnn, has disappeared from pg_database
?
It's
Don't know whether this belongs on the TODO, but it probably needs to go
somewhere in a 'New Features' section (at least the first two items):
pg_dump:
- Support BLOBs in pg_dump (pjw)
- new utility, pg_restore, which will read dump files and restore
all/some of the dump. Also
I just ran across this recent example:
If you perform the following, you get a truncated input:
test=# create table example (type char(5) NOT NULL);
CREATE
test=# insert into example VALUES ('VOLUME');
INSERT 156884 1
test=# select * from example;
type
---
VOLUM
(1 row)
However, if you
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would people please check the TODO list in pgsql/doc/TODO or on our web
site, and let me know if there are any items that need a dash because
they are completed in 7.1? I think I may have missed a few.
* have INTERSECT/EXCEPT prevent duplicates unless
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is this correct behaviour? Perhaps it is, as CHECK is checking the
truncated value - but I just want to make sure it's not a bug!
I think some people feel that we ought to raise an error rather than
silently truncating the input. However,
I think some people feel that we ought to raise an error rather than
silently truncating the input. However, given that we do intend to
truncate the input, it seems to me that applying CHECK constraints
post-truncation is the Right Thing. In general a CHECK ought to be
applied after any
* Make n of CHAR(n)/VARCHAR(n) the number of letters, not bytes
I think this might be done (Tatsuo, what's the status?)
Not yet. Probably will be left for 7.2.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
Thanks. TODO updated.
Bruce Momjian writes:
Would people please check the TODO list in pgsql/doc/TODO or on our web
site, and let me know if there are any items that need a dash because
they are completed in 7.1? I think I may have missed a few.
The following are done:
* Prevent
12 matches
Mail list logo
