On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is one thing I liked about the initdb mention --- it clearly told
them to watch out for something they might not have been looking for.
Only if they read the message, though. People who are running RPM
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Rasmus Resen Amossen wrote:
Does Postgres garantee repeatable-read (RR) during transactions? And does it
implement ARIES/KVL?
If so, why is the following possible?
T1: begin;
T1: select * from table;
(notice the row with id = X)
T2: begin;
T2: delete from table
T1: begin;
T1: select * from table;
(notice the row with id = X)
T2: begin;
T2: delete from table where id = X;
T1: select * from table;
(notice the row with id = X suddenly is gone)
You'll need to SELECT ... FOR UPDATE to lock the row, or use the
SERIALIZABLE transaction more I
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 11:05:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is one thing I liked about the initdb mention --- it clearly told
them to watch out for something they might not have been looking for.
Only if they read the message, though. People who
(moving to HACKERS)
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
The CVS server seems to be working again, but logging in with an empty
password doesn't work. The web interface to anonymous CVS doesn't
work either.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] bruno]$ cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/projects/cvsroot login
(Logging in to
I wrote:
Now I finally understand why the spec has all that strange verbiage
about outer references in set-function arguments. This is the case
they're talking about. (I don't much like their restriction to a single
outer reference ... seems like it would be appropriate to allow multiple
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is one thing I liked about the initdb mention --- it clearly told
them to watch out for something they might not have been looking for.
Only if they read the message, though. People who are running RPM
installations probably
On Thursday 05 June 2003 16:08, Andrew Overholt wrote:
Darko Prenosil once said:
I have noticed that after /etc/init.d/postgresql restart, postmaster is
no longer writes to serverlog. (RedHat 9).
Here is fixed restart section.
restart)
echo -n Restarting PostgreSQL:
su -
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is SUM(up1levelvar + up2levelsvar) considered to be? Would that be
the same as SUM(localvar + outervar) one level up?
Exactly. The spec says that SUM(up1levelvar) is the same as
SUM(localvar) one level up, so this seems a natural generalization.
It
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When we considered outervar1 as a constant, we could do the aggregate in
the subquery using computations, but when SUM(outervar1) is computed in
an above query, combining that with anything that is part of different
query level makes no sense
Note the first timezone change is taken, but the second one is ignored.
rbt=# select * from t;
col
2003-06-03 14:30:25-04
(1 row)
rbt=# set time zone udt;
SET
rbt=# select * from t;
col
2003-06-03 18:30:25+00
(1 row)
Bruce Momjian wrote:
You are going to love the answer to this question --- it already does
compression of any long fields when it is stored in the TOAST table.
Well, sort of. The compression algorithm is extremely poor compared to
anything Christopher mentioned. It was choosen because it's free
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note the first timezone change is taken, but the second one is ignored.
Neither of them are being taken, I think. In CVS tip I get
ERROR: unrecognized timezone name udt
ERROR: unrecognized timezone name est
but until recently we made no
Hello:
Sounds like you are sending junk following the Parse message.
You are right thanks very much, but now i have another problem, i don't
get response from the postgresql server, hummm this is what i'm sending
for test:
Byte1 ('P')
Int32 (40)
String ('')
String ('SELECT
On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 14:55, Christopher Browne wrote:
Rod Taylor wrote:
Note the first timezone change is taken, but the second one is ignored.
rbt=3D# set time zone est;
SET
rbt=3D# select * from t;
col
2003-06-03 18:30:25+00
(1 row)
Are
Tommi Maekitalo wrote:
Hi,
There was a german article in heise news. See
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-23.05.03-000/.
MySQL gets stored procedures and transactions and all the nice features, you
need for a real database (and postgresql already has) by throwing the code
away an
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
How are people going to know to use these special LIKE indexes?
The same way they presumably find out about anything else: RTFM. A couple
of more cross-references and index entries need to be added, though.
Well, this isn't one of those, How
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Peter, I assume SET CONSTRAINTS can't control a domain's constraints ---
it isn't actually a data object in the transaction. Am I right?
No. SET CONSTRAINTS on a domain constraint should affect all constraints
on columns that use the
Hello:
Your Parse message looks fine, but the server will not actually send its
ParseComplete response until you send a Sync or Flush message. The idea
is that Parse is usually going to be part of a series of operations, and
you don't want a separate network packet coming back for each operation
Added to TODO.
---
Rod Taylor wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
Bruce, the TODO list should probably link the SQL99 unsupported feature
list as a source of more items.
Some of the Red Hat guys have been trying to work through the NIST SQL
compliance tests. So far they've found several things we already knew
about, and one we didn't:
-- TEST:0434 GROUP BY with HAVING EXISTS-correlated set function!
SELECT PNUM, SUM(HOURS) FROM WORKS
GROUP BY PNUM
Carlos Guzman Alvarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are right thanks very much, but now i have another problem, i don't
get response from the postgresql server, hummm this is what i'm sending
for test:
Your Parse message looks fine, but the server will not actually send its
ParseComplete
Hello:
Sounds like you are sending junk following the Parse message.
You are right thanks very much, but now i have another problem, i don't
get response from the postgresql server, hummm this is what i'm sending
for test:
Byte1 ('P')
Int32 (40)
String ('')
String ('SELECT
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is one thing I liked about the initdb mention --- it clearly told
them to watch out for something they might not have been looking for.
Only if they read the message, though. People who are running RPM
installations probably never get to see what
Which ones are missing, and should we really be looking at creating a
pg_definition_schema instead?
Missing:
Database, schema, table, domain, cast, conversion, function...
Maybe a definition schema might be better.dunno...it would need to use
the pg_get_*def functions anyway methinks.
Tom Lane wrote:
Some of the Red Hat guys have been trying to work through the NIST SQL
compliance tests. So far they've found several things we already knew
about, and one we didn't:
-- TEST:0434 GROUP BY with HAVING EXISTS-correlated set function!
SELECT PNUM, SUM(HOURS) FROM WORKS
Wow, a subselect in HAVING. Where do they think up these things. :-)
Yes, it would be nice to support it, though I am not surprised no one
has asked for this feature yet. :-)
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Some of the Red Hat
Does Postgres garantee repeatable-read (RR) during transactions? And does it
implement ARIES/KVL?
If so, why is the following possible?
T1: begin;
T1: select * from table;
(notice the row with id = X)
T2: begin;
T2: delete from table where id = X;
T1: select * from table;
(notice the row
28 matches
Mail list logo
