On Sunday 11 October 2009 8:22 am, Dmitriy Igrishin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Please, read pg_dump(1) manual page. You will find this text in it:
> "It is not guaranteed that pg_dump's output can be loaded into a server of
> an older major version -- not even if the dump was taken from a server
> of t
On Sunday 11 October 2009 3:32 am, Dmitriy Igrishin wrote:
> Hello.
> Note, that you may use SERIAL data type and PostgreSQL will implicitly
> create sequence for you column, for example,
> CREATE table test (
> id SERIAL NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, -- PostgreSQL will implicitly
> create 'tes
On Saturday 10 October 2009 4:12 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Paulsen writes:
> > I do have a question, though, I fixed things as indicated above:
> > id integer DEFAULT nextval('vault_id_seq') NOT NULL,
> > Dump gave back
> > id integer DEFAULT n
On Saturday 10 October 2009 3:16 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Paulsen writes:
> > On Saturday 10 October 2009 2:00 pm, Robert Paulsen wrote:
> >> So no default for id. What should it be?
> >> default nextval('vault_id_seq')
> >
> > Should have tr
On Saturday 10 October 2009 2:00 pm, Robert Paulsen wrote:
>
> So no default for id. What should it be?
>
> Something like one of this?
>
> default nextval('vault_id_seq')
>
Should have tried that before posting last message -- it worked. Thanks!
--
Sent vi
On Saturday 10 October 2009 1:46 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Paulsen writes:
> > I have a database with a sequence field as a primary key in a table and
> > can no longer insert data into it as it gets the subject error message.
>
> Does the table actually have a default
I have a database with a sequence field as a primary key in a table and can no
longer insert data into it as it gets the subject error message.
This database has been in use for well over two years without any problems
using postgresql-server-8.0.13-1.1.
Suddenly, when I attempt to add a new re
On Monday 13 March 2006 03:03, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Robert Paulsen wrote:
> > This still requires me to modify the overall database structure but not
> > the original item table. As my reward :) I get to use any type I choose
> > for each new attribute.
>
> The
On Sunday 12 March 2006 11:29, chester c young wrote:
> --- Robert Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One problem with the above is that the list of attributes is fixed. I
> > am looking for a way to assign new, previously undefined, attributes
>
> to
>
> &
Here is a sample table:
item
item_id int
namechar
attrib1 char
attrib2 char
attrib3 char
One problem with the above is that the list of attributes is fixed. I am
looking for a way to assign new, previously undefined, attributes to items
without changing the table structure
10 matches
Mail list logo
