Thanks, Michael and Stephan, for the replies.
I think I will change my schema and remove the check constraint on the
enable column,
since, as Stephan pointed out, it was bad/wrong design to begin with.
Thanks again.
Kashmira
-Original Message-
From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Kashmira Patel (kupatel) wrote:
> Both concerns.
> 1) There are actually more than two columns with such checks, and each
> one calls a few functions which execute some more queries. So I would
> like to invoke these checks only when necessary.
> 2) The bigger concern is the
Both concerns.
1) There are actually more than two columns with such checks, and each
one calls a few functions which execute some more queries. So I would
like to invoke these checks only when necessary.
2) The bigger concern is the side effect: Here's my schema:
CREATE TABLE vm_device
(
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 03:06:26PM -0800, Kashmira Patel (kupatel) wrote:
> I have a table where two columns have two different check constraints
> associated with them. When I update one column, the check constraint on
> the other column is also executed. Is there a way to avoid this? I want
> t
Hi
all,
I have a
table where two columns have two different check constraints associated with
them. When I update one column, the check constraint on the other column is also
executed. Is there a way to avoid this? I want to check only for the condition
defined for the column being upd
I have traced the code. It exits when the argument is the result of a
join or a subselect in function ParseFuncOrColumn(). The reason
mentioned in the comments is lack of named tuple type. How can force
it to create such a tuple type? is there a way? thanks a million
times!
On 1/27/06, Tom Lane <
Sorry. I am working on a research prototype built on 7.3 which contains
a cosiderable amount of efforts. The original developers of the prototype
have no interest in upgrading it. It is also impossible for me to upgrade it
by myself. Could you give me any tips to sovle the current problem? Thanks!
andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I got errors in this query. I have a function complete(record) which
> takes a generic record type data. But it seems cannot be applied to a
> sub-select result:
As I seem to recall having mentioned several times already, PG 7.3 is
really, really weak in this a
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 04:48 -0800, Emil Rachovsky wrote:
> Hi,
> I am using PostgreSQL 8.1.0 . How can I find a temp
> table from my session, having the name of the table?
> Can anyone show me what query should I execute? I've
> tried some things but I receive mixed results of
> tables from differe
Hi,
I am using PostgreSQL 8.1.0 . How can I find a temp
table from my session, having the name of the table?
Can anyone show me what query should I execute? I've
tried some things but I receive mixed results of
tables from different sessions, which is strange.
I repeatedly get this error whenever I try to backup a database
The command used is:
pg_dump -Fc -O -U username tablename > tablename.20060122
pg_dump: ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 4294967290
pg_dump: SQL command to dump the contents of table "cc_ratecard" failed:
PQendcopy() faile
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 10:42 +0100, Markus Schaber wrote:
> >>>Is it possible to change the transaction level within the procedure?
> >>No, currently not, the PostgreSQL "stored procedures" really are "stored
> >>functions" that are called inside a query, and thus cannot contain inner
> >>transacti
I got errors in this query. I have a function complete(record) which
takes a generic record type data. But it seems cannot be applied to a
sub-select result:
backend> explain select * from (select * from Person,Auction where
Person.id=Auction.seller) as s where complete(s)
QUERY: explain select *
I can see the final plan by using the EXPLAIN command. But I want to
know the procedure of the planner in handling nesting queries. Can you
direct me to the corresponding part of the code and/or the documents?
Thanks.
On 1/26/06, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> andrew wrote:
> > How
14 matches
Mail list logo