Re: Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Extracting time from timestamp

2003-03-20 Thread Shridhar Daithankar<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Friday 21 Mar 2003 12:25 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > "Shridhar Daithankar<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > And What's so holy about "" if it is a function? > > The problem is that TIME(n) is a datatype name, not a function call,

Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Extracting time from timestamp

2003-03-20 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Friday 21 Mar 2003 11:38 am, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > phd=# select time(abstime(timestamp 'now')) from bookings; > > ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "abstime" at character 13 > > phd=# select time(timestamp 'now') from bookings; > > ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "timest

[HACKERS] Another naive question, inheritance and foreign key

2003-03-19 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi, Just stumbled upon this. Is it correct to conclude that foreign keys are not inherited from this text? phd=# create table perbookings(type smallint) inherits (bookings); CREATE TABLE phd=# \d perbookings; Table "public.perbookings" Column |

Re: [HACKERS] Primary key and references

2003-03-18 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tuesday 18 Mar 2003 8:07 pm, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Shridhar Daithankar<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I consider this as a bug but given my understanding of sql, I won't count > > on it. Any comments? > > If a is to be referenced in a f

[HACKERS] Primary key and references

2003-03-18 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi, Today I discovered that if there is a compund primary key on a table, I can not create a reference from another table to one of the fields in the primary key.. Look at this.. phd=# create table tmp1(a integer,b integer,primary key(a,b)); NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create impl

[HACKERS] Thread safe ecpg

2003-02-24 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi all, I was just wondering.The patches for making ecpg thread safe that were floating around few days back, are they going to make in any near future releases? I am badly bitten by libpq as code i my multithreaded app. is growing steadily. I find myself making stupid mistakes every now and t

Re: [HACKERS] location of the configuration files

2003-02-14 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Friday 14 Feb 2003 9:05 pm, you wrote: > Martin Coxall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's a pretty topic for a flamewar: should it be /etc/postgres/ or > /etc/postgresql/ ? I vote for /etc/pgsql. Keeping in line of unix philosophy of cryptic and short names. Who wants a descriptive names any

Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]

2003-02-11 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 10:56 pm, you wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What if we supplied several sample .conf files, and let the user choose > > which to copy into the database directory? We could have a "high read > > performance" profile, and a "transaction database" profil

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 8:01 pm, Mario Weilguni wrote: > >Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database > >benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on > >Win32 isn't really fair: > > > >http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance > > And wh

Re: [HACKERS] On file locking

2003-01-30 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Friday 31 Jan 2003 9:56 am, you wrote: > Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But this only wins if a child process inheriting an open file also > inherits copies of any locks held by the parent. If not, then the > issue is moot. Anybody have any idea if file locks work that way? > Is it

Re: [HACKERS] [ADMIN] Cannot connect to the database (PG 7.3)

2003-01-28 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wednesday 29 Jan 2003 3:34 am, you wrote: > I wrote: > The reason this was done was to avoid the need to do catalog lookups > when restoring a prior setting during error recovery. That's still a > valid concern, so right offhand I don't see an easy fix. Any ideas? Document it as a bug and rec

[HACKERS] ECPG, threading and pooling

2003-01-23 Thread Shridhar Daithankar&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi all, I would like to use ECPG as it is relatively easy to code. However my application is multithreaded and also uses connecion pools. I would like to know if ECPG is thread safe and I can use an arbitrary PGconn* object pulled from a connection pool. Do I need to use connection name? I mea