Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about being able to recompile them (keeping the SQL around in the
> system catalogs)? Doesn't Oracle allow you to do something like that?
That's another possibility. It's not real clear that there's any
advantage to storing rules in preparsed form
Grant writes:
> I have a message board. Where users can send each other messages. I
> doubt I will ever get 2147483647 messages, but I want to make sure I
> never get an error where the message isn't sent.
Think about loads. If your users are going to be posting 10
messages/second, that's 864000
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 07:50:00PM -0500, Tom Lane allegedly wrote:
> Andrew Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But I'm intrigued: what is it that causes this? Is it *my*
> > recreating the view on which the other views depend,
>
> Yes. You dropped and recreated the view --- the new version
Andrew Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I'm intrigued: what is it that causes this? Is it *my*
> recreating the view on which the other views depend,
Yes. You dropped and recreated the view --- the new version may have
the same name but it's not the same OID, so it isn't the same object.
Thanks - I appreciate the quick reply. As it turns out, I was able to find
the original SQL I used to generate (most of) the queries, so I'm
okay. But I'm intrigued: what is it that causes this? Is it *my*
recreating the view on which the other views depend, or is it some
internal glitch?
Thanks
> > (1) Why is a sequence limited to 2147483647, it seems very small?
>
> Yikes! What are you counting? :-)
I have a message board. Where users can send each other messages. I doubt I
will ever get 2147483647 messages, but I want to make sure I never get an error
where the message isn't sent.
Andrew Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> fgdata=# \d sx_l_m_r_a
> ERROR: cache lookup of attribute 197 in relation 47074 failed
> fgdata=# select * from pg_views;
> ERROR: cache lookup of attribute 317 in relation 48494 failed
> A SELECT from the rebuilt query itself works fine, so I know it
Multiple backends can create temp tables with the same name and each
person will see their own version.
> Thus spake datactrl
> > How do I check if a temporary table exists? Searching pg_tables with a
> > temporary table name we chose always fails.
>
> What do you mean? You know that it exists
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
> Thus spake datactrl
>> How do I check if a temporary table exists? Searching pg_tables with a
>> temporary table name we chose always fails.
> What do you mean? You know that it exists because you just created it
> and the create succeeded. Can you
Greetings-
I'm in a bit of a pickle. I rebuilt a big query on top of which lots of
little queries rest, so as to use some new columns in the query. Now, I
get error messages when trying to access any view that SELECTs from the
rebuilt query:
fgdata=# \d sx_l_m_r_a
ERROR: cache lookup of attrib
Grant writes:
> (1) Why is a sequence limited to 2147483647, it seems very small?
Because that's what a four-byte signed integer takes. No one has stepped
forward to implement 8-byte sequence counters, yet.
> (2) If I reset the sequence, then try another insert. It will not insert
> anything u
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 03:55:09PM +1000, Grant allegedly wrote:
> Please see below for my table schema. I have two questions.
>
> (1) Why is a sequence limited to 2147483647, it seems very small?
This is the maximum value a signed integer (32-bit) can contain. If
this really is a problem for yo
Thus spake datactrl
> How do I check if a temporary table exists? Searching pg_tables with a
> temporary table name we chose always fails.
What do you mean? You know that it exists because you just created it
and the create succeeded. Can you describe a situation where you need
to know about a
Grant wrote:
>
> Please see below for my table schema. I have two questions.
>
> (1) Why is a sequence limited to 2147483647, it seems very small?
That's 2 billion(ish) - the largest signed 32 bit integer.
> (2) If I reset the sequence, then try another insert. It will not insert
> anything u
Thus spake Grant
> Please see below for my table schema. I have two questions.
>
> (1) Why is a sequence limited to 2147483647, it seems very small?
Yikes! What are you counting? :-)
The value 2147483647 is the largest value that can fit into an int. It is
equal to 0x7fff in hex. If you
On 3/20/01, 7:23:04 PM, Marios Moutzouris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
regarding [SQL] rows equal:
> Hello
> I need a sql query to a postgresql database which can tell me whether the
> rows returned ar equal.
> i.e
> ---
> Status
> ---
> Order
> ---
> Collected
> --
> This
16 matches
Mail list logo
