Hi all,
because no one noticed my last question, please forgive me this repost, but I
promised my boss to get an answer to this questions.
Here they are:
When a new table or field is created without quotes, it is assumed to be
case-insensitive. Herefore I have some questions:
- Is it SQL-92-c
Anyone know why I could possibly get this error? This doesn't happen
deterministically.
WaitOnLock: error on wakeup - Aborting this transaction
I also got this notice:
NOTICE: Deadlock detected -- See the lock(l) manual page
---
Actually, what I'm looking for in this mail is a possible way
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 6. A unique index is already defined over (b, a)
>
> > - As above. Technically a different index, but effect
> > as far as uniqueness is concerned is identical?
>
> This case *must not* be an error IMHO: it's perfectly reason
> ...
> > I found the article sobering:
> ...
>
> It is commonly thought that one should be sober at least part of every
> day, so it isn't entirely clear whether you consider this good or bad.
>
> Oh, maybe that isn't what you meant? ;)
I read it and thought, "Wow, that seems like a royal mess
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> When someone issues this command:
>
> ALTER TABLE test ADD UNIQUE (a, b);
>
> What happens when:
>
> 1. A non-unique index is already defined over (a, b)
>
> - Either add new index or promote existing one to unique?
Well, either wor
...
> I found the article sobering:
...
It is commonly thought that one should be sober at least part of every
day, so it isn't entirely clear whether you consider this good or bad.
Oh, maybe that isn't what you meant? ;)
- Thomas
---(end of broadca
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 6. A unique index is already defined over (b, a)
> - As above. Technically a different index, but effect
> as far as uniqueness is concerned is identical?
This case *must not* be an error IMHO: it's perfectly reasonable to ha
Here is a message about finding a target date for Mozilla's 1.0 release.
I found the article sobering:
http://www.mozillazine.org/articles/article1958.html
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If yo
When someone issues this command:
ALTER TABLE test ADD UNIQUE (a, b);
What happens when:
1. A non-unique index is already defined over (a, b)
- Either add new index or promote existing one to unique?
2. A non-unique index is already defined over (b, a)
- As above?
3. A prima
Dave Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, i've been told to bring this up on this mailing list, so, I do so:
> rather than kill myself re-explaining, i'll just cut&paste my email
> correspondence.
Actually, what you should have done was consult the archives of this
list. You will find that y
Ok, i've been told to bring this up on this mailing list, so, I do so:
rather than kill myself re-explaining, i'll just cut&paste my email
correspondence.
I said:
can't create timestamp field (only timestamp with time zone)
the response was:
Those are the same data types.
then I said:
xxiii w
> Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > mydb=# create user foo NOCREATEUSER NOCREATEDB in group bar;
> > ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "NOCREATEDB"
>
> > This line:
> > [ CREATEDB | NOCREATEDB ] [ CREATEUSER | NOCREATEUSER ]
> > does say I can do both, right?
>
> It says
Tom Lane writes:
> SQL92 gives this restriction on WHERE clauses for updatable views:
>
> d) If the immediately contained in QS imme-
> diately contains a WC, then no leaf generally
> underlying table of QS shall be a generally underlying table
>
> We have the following item on TODO:
>
> * Overhaul pg_hba.conf host-based authentication
>
> Can people tell me what they want changed. I know we need the pg_shadow
> password field encrypted in the table and I will work on that now.
I haven't heard of any more issues with pg_hba.conf
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > > Vince Vielhaber writes:
> > >
> > > > I can grant a series of privileges (comma separated) on a series of
> > > > objects (comma separated) to either a user, group or public NOT a
> > > > comma sepa
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 06:52:49AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
> > How hard would it be to turn these row records into updates against a
> > pg_dump image, assuming access to a good table-image file?
>
> pg_dump is very hard because WAL contains only tids. No way to match
> that
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > Vince Vielhaber writes:
> >
> > > I can grant a series of privileges (comma separated) on a series of
> > > objects (comma separated) to either a user, group or public NOT a
> > > comma separated list of users or groups.
> >
> > I should have th
Added to pg_index.h file as a comment.
>
> > > > Can someone tell me what we use indislossy for?
>
> Ok, so the interpretation of this field is:
> A match in the index needs to be reevaluated in the heap tuple data,
> since a match in the index does not necessarily mean, that the
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> >> The most prominent of the "interesting uses" probably beeing when the views
> >> are part of the authorization system, since views are the only standardized
> >> mechanism to restrict access at the r
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>> The most prominent of the "interesting uses" probably beeing when the views
>> are part of the authorization system, since views are the only standardized
>> mechanism to restrict access at the row level.
> True, and oft
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
>
> > My feeling is that the restrictions are stringent enough to eliminate
> > most of the interesting uses of views, and hence an automatic rule
> > creation feature is not nearly as useful/important as it appears at
> > first glance.
>
> The most prominent of
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 02:03:31PM -0700, Naomi Walker allegedly wrote:
> At 04:30 PM 7/5/01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >I have purchased the Solaris source code from Sun for $80. (I could
> >have downloaded it for free after faxing them an 11 page contract, but I
> >decided I wanted the CD's.
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 04:30:40PM -0400, Bruce Momjian allegedly wrote:
> I have purchased the Solaris source code from Sun for $80. (I could
> have downloaded it for free after faxing them an 11 page contract, but I
> decided I wanted the CD's.) See the slashdot story at:
>
> http://sla
> My feeling is that the restrictions are stringent enough to eliminate
> most of the interesting uses of views, and hence an automatic rule
> creation feature is not nearly as useful/important as it appears at
> first glance.
The most prominent of the "interesting uses" probably beeing when th
24 matches
Mail list logo
