I have written a few Postgres extension functions in C, and want to modify
some of them to return an int8. However, I don't see any int8 definition
in postgres.h. (I have the 7.0.2 RPMs installed.) How should I
accomplish this?
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:32:50 +0200 (CEST), Karel Zak wrote:
>
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Forest Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> I have written a few Postgres extension functions in C, and want to modify
>> some of them to return an int8. However, I don't see any int8 definition
>>
; commit;
session1>> COMMIT
(session2 resumes)
session2>> nextid
session2>>
session2>> 0
session2>> (1 row)
What gives??? I expected the second call to nextid() to return 2!
session1<< select * from idseq;
session1>> name | id
session1>> ------+
session1>> myid | 1
session1>> (1 row)
session2<< select * from idseq;
session2>> name | id
session2>> --+
session2>> myid | 1
session2>> (1 row)
As you can see, my nextid() function is not synchronized the way I hoped.
I don't know why though. Can someone help?
Thanks,
Forest Wilkinson
ng postgres 7.0.2 now, but I discovered this problem (and the
workaround) with 6.5.2 or 6.5.3.
>I'm up to my armpits in subselect-in-FROM right now, but will put this
>on my to-do list. Will look at it in a week or two if no one else has
>fixed it before then...
>
> regards, tom lane
Thanks, Tom. Please let me know when there's a fix.
I can provide more detailed C source code if you need it, but I think the
relevant parts of the code are expressed in this message.
Forest Wilkinson
former behavior
would be dangerous, while the latter behavior would be desirable.
Thanks,
Forest Wilkinson
I'd like to create an index on a column whose type is NUMERIC(12,2).
There appears to be no default operator class for the numeric type. What
class should I use instead? My guess is that something like this might
work:
CREATE INDEX foo_idx on foo (bar int8_ops);
Will that work properly? Will
>> I'd like to create an index on a column whose type is NUMERIC(12,2).
>> There appears to be no default operator class for the numeric type.
>
>Uh, what version are you using? Works fine for me in 7.0.2.
Sorry; I hit send before adding that information. I'm using postgres
6.5.3 on i386 Red Ha
On 13 Nov 2000 10:30:55 PST, Dr Frog wrote:
>create sequnece seq_name ;
>
>there are additional options
>start sql and type
What are the "SQL" and "TYPE" options? I don't see reference to them in
the docs.
Can I use the TYPE option to create a sequence that's based in int8 (64
bit integer) in
true?
Forest Wilkinson
transaction. This is clearly
undesirable.
Isn't there some way to tell postgres *not* to roll back my transaction if
a particular DELETE fails due to referential integrity? Are there any
other options that might help me?
Regards,
Forest Wilkinson
gt;> arrange for it with custom trigger procedures, checking all
>> the five tables on DELETE or UPDATE on one of them.
Forest Wilkinson wrote:
>> > I have a database in which five separate tables may (or may not) reference
>> > any given row in a table of postal add
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:26:58 -0500 (EST), Michael Fork wrote:
>One other method is to setup up the foreign keys as ON DELETE RESTRICT,
>then outside of your transaction block issue a DELETE FROM address WHERE
>add_id = 1; If there are still records in the other tables referencing
>this record, i
t; commit;
session2>> COMMIT
session2<< select * from idseq;
session2>> name | id
session2>> --+
session2>> myid | 2
session2>> (1 row)
session1<< select * from idseq;
session1>> name | id
session1>> --+
ses
On Tuesday 27 March 2001 15:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Forest Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > session1<< create function nextid( varchar(32)) returns int8 as '
> > session1<< select * from idseq where name = $1::text for update;
> > session1<&
On Thursday 29 March 2001 22:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Just looked in heapam.c - I can fix it in two hours.
> > The question is - should we do this now?
>
> This scares the hell out of me.
>
> I do NOT think we should be making quick-hack changes in fundamental
> system semantics at this point of th
If I add ON UPDATE CASCADE to my foreign key definitions, how much will it
affect performance for queries that don't trigger the cascade?
Cheers,
Forest
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(Postgres 7.0.3, linux kernel 2.4.2, i386, red hat 7.1)
I'm trying to build rules to automatically populate several tables with
references to any new rows inserted into a primary key table. The primary
key is a sequence. Here's what's going on:
mydb=# create table foo (fooid serial primary
Tom Lane mentioned in this post that an empty query can be sent to the
server to determine whether the connection is still good:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-10/msg00643.php
Is a query of "" guaranteed to work as long as the connection is good?
What about ";" or " "?
Backgro
I need to enumerate the constraints on any given column in a table, so
I'm examining pg_constraint to get the relevant information. The
conkey array contains a list of constrained columns, and although I am
able to check conkey[1] for constraints on a single column, I would
like to properly handle
>> I need to enumerate the constraints on any given column in a table, so
>> I'm examining pg_constraint to get the relevant information. The
>> conkey array contains a list of constrained columns, and although I am
>> able to check conkey[1] for constraints on a single column, I would
>> like to
I have become maintainer of a program that uses PostgreSQL 6.5.2 for
database functionality. It is littered with code blocks that do the
following:
1. SELECT * FROM some_table WHERE foo = bar FOR UPDATE;
2. -- Choose a new value for some_field, which might or might not
be based on its origina
ble.
(In order for my_next_uid() to be useful, it must retrieve a new value
each time it is used.)
Is my understanding correct? What should I do about it? The postgresql
6.5.2 docs for CREATE FUNCTION don't tell me how to make my functions
non-cachable.
Regards,
Forest Wilkinson
22 matches
Mail list logo
