[EMAIL PROTECTED] (scott.marlowe) wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Of course, those would be SQL
Oliver Elphick wrote:
I deleted the first table. The sequence was deleted too, leaving the
default of the second table referring to a non-existent sequence.
Could this be a TODO item in 7.4, to add a dependency check when a
sequence is set as the default without being created at the same
Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
concurrency issues. ;-)
---
Thomas O'Connell wrote:
It seems worth pointing out, too, that some SQL purists propose not
relying on product-specific methods of
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
concurrency issues. ;-)
Or they're the kind that locks the entire table for any given insert.
--
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of
Thomas O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems worth pointing out, too, that some SQL purists propose not
relying on product-specific methods of auto-incrementing.
I.e., it is possible to do something like:
insert into foo( col, ... )
values( coalesce( ( select max( col ) from foo ), 0
On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
concurrency issues. ;-)
Or they're the kind
On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
concurrency issues. ;-)
Or they're the kind that locks the entire table for any given insert.
Isn't that what Bruce just said? ;^)
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
concurrency issues. ;-)
Or they're the kind that locks the entire table for any given
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 21:35, Robert Treat wrote:
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 03:53, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 15:45, Thomas Aichinger wrote:
Hi,
I recently installed pg 7.2.3 on my linux box and discovered that
there are some problems with datatype serial and sequence.
This requires changing the nextval() function to be an attribute of the
sequence.
ie. sequence.nextval and sequence.currval to deal with the sequence.
It should also be on the todo list.
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 17:12, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 21:35, Robert Treat wrote:
On
Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 21:35, Robert Treat wrote:
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 03:53, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 15:45, Thomas Aichinger wrote:
Hi,
I recently installed pg 7.2.3 on my linux box and discovered that
there are some problems with
Justin Clift [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This sounds like a serious bug in our behaviour, and not something
we'd like to release.
It's not ideal, I agree, but I *definately* don't think this is
grounds for changing the release schedule.
No real issue with the nicety for newbies, but am very
Neil Conway wrote:
Justin Clift [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This sounds like a serious bug in our behaviour, and not something
we'd like to release.
It's not ideal, I agree, but I *definately* don't think this is
grounds for changing the release schedule.
Hey, I'm no fan of slowing the
Justin Clift [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oliver Elphick wrote:
I created a sequence using SERIAL when I created a table. I used the
same sequence for another table by setting a column default to
nextval(sequence).
I deleted the first table. The sequence was deleted too, leaving the
default
14 matches
Mail list logo
