In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark Woodward wrote:
Tom had posted a question about file compression with copy. I thought
about it, and I want to through this out and see if anyone things it is a
good idea.
Currently, the COPY command only copies a
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:00:22AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
T-SQL has statement-level triggers, and they get used a lot (some big apps
ONLY put code in triggers). Statement-level triggers are very efficient
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Tony Caduto wrote:
Hi,
I just noticed today that Postgresql accepts a value of 24:00:00, this
is for sure not correct as there is no such thing as 24:00:00
PG Admin III will display this value just fine which is
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
A leap second will show as 24:00:00. It is a valid time.
Shouldn't such a leap second be represented as '... 23:59:60'?
People who didn't
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mysql SELECT EXTRACT(MICROSECOND FROM '2003-01-02 10:30:01.00123');
+---+
| EXTRACT(MICROSECOND FROM '2003-01-02 10:30:01.00123') |
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 07:44:55PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
not have any unique indexes or row triggers. It should be possible to
take advantage of this automatically when those requirements are met,
without any new
Consider the following:
CREATE TEMP TABLE tbl (
id SERIAL NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
COPY tbl (id) FROM stdin;
1
2
3
4
\.
SELECT substring ('1234567890' FOR (SELECT count (*) FROM tbl)::int);
This returns '1234', as expected. But
SELECT substring ('1234567890'
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
It's even sillier than that:
test=# SELECT substring ('1234567890' FOR 4::bigint);
substring
---
(1 row)
test=# SELECT substring ('1234567890' FOR 4::int);
substring
---
1234
(1 row)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it's great news. My personal opinion about formating NULL values
'{a, NULL, b}' -- longer, clean NULL is NULL
Unfortunately, that already has a meaning, and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Gregory Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 11/4/05, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote:
Yeah, and while one way of removing that dependance is to use ICU, that
library wants everything in UTF-16. So we replace copying to add NULL
to string with
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* optional interface which sends a row typeoid along with each row in a
result set
Oh, and 'select rowid, * from table' which returns special rowid
column that just incrementally numbers each row.
Why? It's a
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One possible approach is to do the invalidation on a sufficiently coarse
grain that we don't care. For example, I would be inclined to make any
change in a table's schema invalidate all plans that use that table at
all; that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One possible approach is to do the invalidation on a sufficiently coarse
grain that we don't care. For example, I would be inclined to make any
change in a table's schema invalidate all plans that use that table at
all; that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sep 20, 2004, at 12:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think we should favor libpq usage wherever possible and only
re-implement it in the native language when required, like for
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Oliver Jowett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you just made my point for me. C++ allows default parameters
and resolves the ambiguity by disallowing ambiguous calls when they
happen.
I'm not sure why C++ doesn't disallow it at declaration time off the
top of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right, the reason it's important is that there are some things now that
are potentially tied together. If you have table A with rows A1,...,An and
table B with rows B1,...,Bm and the delete join condition gives the two
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald,
You're talking about the deletion target table. Sorry to mention
the M word again, but MySQL allows deleting from more than one table
at the same time. Should we support that?
Nope. In fact, I'd argue pretty
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In exactly the same order as for single-table DELETEs -
implementation-defined.
I think you probably meant in an unspecified order.
Implementation-defined really doesn't mean anything when you're trying to
define what it
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about
DELETE FROM staff JOIN users ...
then?
I don't much care for that, mainly because in my mind x JOIN y should
always be semantically equivalent to y JOIN x. I think we want a
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, as yall have pointed out, the feature is not sql spec (for some
reason I thought it had been put in) so since the update syntax seems
quite similar to oracles, perhaps they can
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 12:36, Josh Berkus wrote:
Rod,
I think what we want is a clean template without all of the extras that
template1 has.
We have this, it's called Template0.
Doesn't work for me. I remove a number
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and
uniformity.
Why is that a good idea?
Two reasons:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Chris Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald Fuchs wrote:
Why don't you just do
( echo -- This is my comment
pg_dump whatever
) dumpfile
?
How could I dump using the custom format, and then use dumpfile with
pg_restore to restore the dump? If I just
23 matches
Mail list logo
