Re: [HACKERS] table-level and row-level locks.

Hi, (B (BI understand this is very old topics but ... (BI tried to find where such lock mark is defined in each tuple on disk, but I (Bfailed to find such definition in include/access/htup.h. Only the bit (Brelevant to lock is HEAP_XMAX_UNLOGGED and I understand this bit is used only (Bwhen

Re: [HACKERS] Your application

See the attached file for details ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match

Re: [HACKERS] Networking in 7.4?

> Do we have full Rendezvous and IPv6 support in 7.4? That is, sufficient to > shout about in our PR materials? I believe so. You can specify a rendezvous name in the conf file. Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive

Re: [HACKERS] Qualified tables in error messages

> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ERROR: table "schema"."foo" does not exist > > > > which is just plain ugly. Why not wrap all 'identifier' outputs in a call to the quoting function, so the above message would in fact appear as: table schema.foo does not exist but with a space in it i

[HACKERS] Networking in 7.4?

Folks, Do we have full Rendezvous and IPv6 support in 7.4? That is, sufficient to shout about in our PR materials? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map

[HACKERS] Your details

See the attached file for details ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page

Tom Lane wrote: > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I object to creating gratuitous incompatibilities with the SQL standard, > >> which will obstruct legitimate features down the road. The SQL standard > >> says it is .. > > > Is there a case for enforcing uniqueness on constraint

Re: [HACKERS] Your application

See the attached file for details ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Re: [HACKERS] Approved

Please see the attached file for details. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] Qualified tables in error messages

"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ERROR: table "schema"."foo" does not exist > > which is just plain ugly. I think that is better for the moment this ugly message that have lack of information. Regards Gaetano Mendola ---(end of broadcast)-

Re: [HACKERS] Approved

See the attached file for details ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match

[HACKERS] LOCK.tag(figuring out granularity of lock)

following is taken from postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/readme: "If we are setting a table level lock both the blockId and tupleId (in an item pointer this is called the position) are set to invalid, if it is a page level lock the blockId is valid, while the tuple

Re: [HACKERS] poorly written builtin functions

On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 12:39:53AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I assume this has been addressed? Yes, Tom checked a fix into CVS for the functions in question. -Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne writes: > > > > > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named > > > > constraints currently. We should probably allow . > > > > (and ..) as well. Too late for 7.4, but > > > > this can happen for 7.5 if

Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page

"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I object to creating gratuitous incompatibilities with the SQL standard, >> which will obstruct legitimate features down the road. The SQL standard >> says it is .. > Is there a case for enforcing uniqueness on constraint names, then? Other than "S

Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page

- Original Message - From: "Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Stephan Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Hackers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 3:51 AM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page > Christophe

Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page

Christopher Kings-Lynne writes: > > > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named > > > constraints currently. We should probably allow . > > > (and ..) as well. Too late for 7.4, but > > > this can happen for 7.5 if there aren't any objections. > > > > I object. > > Thanks

Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page

> > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named > > constraints currently. We should probably allow . > > (and ..) as well. Too late for 7.4, but > > this can happen for 7.5 if there aren't any objections. > > I object. Thanks for the helpful objection. To what do you objec

Re: [HACKERS] error making man docs

Andrew Dunstan writes: > ../../../src/backend/catalog/sql_feature_packages.txt > ../../../src/backend/catalog/sql_features.txt > features-unsupported.sgml > onsgmls postgres.sgml | sgmlspl > /usr/share/sgml/docbook/utils-0.6.11/helpers/docbook2man-spec.pl > --lowercase --section l --date "`date '

Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page

Stephan Szabo writes: > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named > constraints currently. We should probably allow . > (and ..) as well. Too late for 7.4, but > this can happen for 7.5 if there aren't any objections. I object. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] -