Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
> Hi all,
>
> I'm attaching a patch which fixes the corruption in strings caused
> by escape processing in the SQL statemen
OK, patch applied.
> Bruce,
>
> This patch is fine.
>
> thanks,
> --Barry
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I noticed that jdbc1 getBoolean allows '1', while jdbc2 does not. The
> > following patch makes jdbc2 accept '1' also. Is this OK?
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
Hello there,
could someone tell me, please, do I have any chance to get
proper implementation of above method in JDBC (1.1+) soon?
Current "return 1" works fine on most tables, however it seems
to be a little bit incorrect with some of them ;)
--
===] Internet Designers SA, Programming Dept., s
Hi all,
Wonder if anyone had a look at this patch yet? I've been using my locally
patched version for a while now and it works fine. Again just to make it
clear what it does...
- It fixes an Exception which will be thrown with the following insert.
insert into values ('{d');
-
Barry,
This is a pretty interesting patch. I'll be wanting to use bytea
in the coming weeks so I'll have a good chance to test this out.
I haven't really looked at the patch itself but I'd be happy to
see it committed as its great progress :) Thanks!
Tom.
> Attached is a patch to add bytea supp
You wrote:
>> I can see that very long transaction are not supported.
Where or how did you see that?
>As far as transaction is concerned, my question was if there is any limit
>to the number of statements (select/insert/update) that can be
>in one single transaction.
>Is is possible postgresql
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 04:55:06 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>I have a table with those column name "position" and "local"
[parse error near local]
>I think this is a bug since as I just change the field name in
>the table and recompile my application and can run with no error.
"local" is a reserved wo
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:22:53 +0200, you wrote:
>Because the "1" features is not suppossed to be in the spécification
I think it is. See my other posting.
To be more precise: the int->boolean mapping is in the spec, but
the spec doesn't say how int values should be mapped to true and
false.
Rega
On 13 Sep 2001 22:58:23 -0500, you wrote:
>I have a schema & data from Oracle that uses a 'fake' boolean column.
>(Stupid oracle doesn't support type boolean afaik - uses number). I
>find the easiest way to adapt the schema & data to postgresql is to
>*not* convert the 'fake' boolean fields (enfo
At 22:58 13/09/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm that person. I'm not trying to do anything convoluted. ;-)
>
>I have a schema & data from Oracle that uses a 'fake' boolean column.
>(Stupid oracle doesn't support type boolean afaik - uses number). I
>find the easiest way to adapt the schema & data to
Hi guys, this has been sent direct to me. Peter
---
Hi,
I have a table with those column name "position" and "local" and I use the
JDBC for PostgreSQL as you provided. But when I run the my Java Application.
I t prompts up SQLException: parser: parse error at or
near "position"("lo
Thanks for your reply.
As far as transaction is concerned, my question was if there is any limit
to the number of statements (select/insert/update) that can be
in one single transaction.
Is is possible postgresql buffer size influence transaction
limit?
I had a transaction with thousands of stat
12 matches
Mail list logo
