mirror of https://github.com/postgres/postgres
Bruce Momjian
25 years ago
parent
2679a38a1f
commit
f3416bef03
@ -0,0 +1,416 @@ |
|||||||
|
From fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru Tue Jan 23 03:38:45 2001 |
||||||
|
Received: from mx.nsu.ru (root@mx.nsu.ru [193.124.215.71]) |
||||||
|
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id DAA14458 |
||||||
|
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:38:24 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
Received: from iclub.nsu.ru (root@iclub.nsu.ru [193.124.222.66]) |
||||||
|
by mx.nsu.ru (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA29153; |
||||||
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:31:27 +0600 (NOVT) |
||||||
|
Received: from localhost (fjoe@localhost) |
||||||
|
by iclub.nsu.ru (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0N8VOr15273; |
||||||
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:31:25 +0600 (NS) |
||||||
|
(envelope-from fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru) |
||||||
|
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:31:24 +0600 (NS) |
||||||
|
From: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> |
||||||
|
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> |
||||||
|
cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> |
||||||
|
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in FOREIGN KEY |
||||||
|
In-Reply-To: <200101230416.XAA04293@candle.pha.pa.us> |
||||||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101231429310.12474-100000@iclub.nsu.ru> |
||||||
|
MIME-Version: 1.0 |
||||||
|
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
||||||
|
Status: RO |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
hi, there! |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote: |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> |
||||||
|
> > This problem with foreign keys has been reported to me, and I have confirmed |
||||||
|
> > the bug exists in current sources. The DELETE should succeed: |
||||||
|
> > |
||||||
|
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
|
> > |
||||||
|
> > CREATE TABLE primarytest2 ( |
||||||
|
> > col1 INTEGER, |
||||||
|
> > col2 INTEGER, |
||||||
|
> > PRIMARY KEY(col1, col2) |
||||||
|
> > ); |
||||||
|
> > |
||||||
|
> > CREATE TABLE foreigntest2 (col3 INTEGER, |
||||||
|
> > col4 INTEGER, |
||||||
|
> > FOREIGN KEY (col3, col4) REFERENCES primarytest2 |
||||||
|
> > ); |
||||||
|
> > test=> BEGIN; |
||||||
|
> > BEGIN |
||||||
|
> > test=> INSERT INTO primarytest2 VALUES (5,5); |
||||||
|
> > INSERT 27618 1 |
||||||
|
> > test=> DELETE FROM primarytest2 WHERE col1 = 5 AND col2 = 5; |
||||||
|
> > ERROR: triggered data change violation on relation "primarytest2" |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I have another (slightly different) example: |
||||||
|
--- cut here --- |
||||||
|
test=> CREATE TABLE pr(obj_id int PRIMARY KEY); |
||||||
|
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE/PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index 'pr_pkey' for |
||||||
|
table 'pr' |
||||||
|
CREATE |
||||||
|
test=> CREATE TABLE fr(obj_id int REFERENCES pr ON DELETE CASCADE); |
||||||
|
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit trigger(s) for FOREIGN KEY |
||||||
|
check(s) |
||||||
|
CREATE |
||||||
|
test=> BEGIN; |
||||||
|
BEGIN |
||||||
|
test=> INSERT INTO pr (obj_id) VALUES (1); |
||||||
|
INSERT 200539 1 |
||||||
|
test=> INSERT INTO fr (obj_id) SELECT obj_id FROM pr; |
||||||
|
INSERT 200540 1 |
||||||
|
test=> DELETE FROM fr; |
||||||
|
ERROR: triggered data change violation on relation "fr" |
||||||
|
test=> |
||||||
|
--- cut here --- |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
we are running postgresql 7.1 beta3 |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/fjoe |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
From sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com Tue Jan 23 13:41:55 2001 |
||||||
|
Received: from megazone23.bigpanda.com (rfx-64-6-210-138.users.reflexcom.com [64.6.210.138]) |
||||||
|
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA19924 |
||||||
|
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:41:54 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
Received: from localhost (sszabo@localhost) |
||||||
|
by megazone23.bigpanda.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0NIfLa41018; |
||||||
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:41:21 -0800 (PST) |
||||||
|
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:41:21 -0800 (PST) |
||||||
|
From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> |
||||||
|
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> |
||||||
|
cc: Jan Wieck <janwieck@Yahoo.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, |
||||||
|
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> |
||||||
|
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in FOREIGN KEY |
||||||
|
In-Reply-To: <200101230417.XAA04332@candle.pha.pa.us> |
||||||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101231031290.40955-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com> |
||||||
|
MIME-Version: 1.0 |
||||||
|
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
||||||
|
Status: RO |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> > Think I misinterpreted the SQL3 specs WR to this detail. The |
||||||
|
> > checks must be made per statement, not at the transaction |
||||||
|
> > level. I'll try to fix it, but we need to define what will |
||||||
|
> > happen with referential actions in the case of conflicting |
||||||
|
> > actions on the same key - there are some possible conflicts: |
||||||
|
> > |
||||||
|
> > 1. DEFERRED ON DELETE NO ACTION or RESTRICT |
||||||
|
> > |
||||||
|
> > Do the referencing rows reference to the new PK row with |
||||||
|
> > the same key now, or is this still a constraint |
||||||
|
> > violation? I would say it's not, because the constraint |
||||||
|
> > condition is satisfied at the end of the transaction. How |
||||||
|
> > do other databases behave? |
||||||
|
> > |
||||||
|
> > 2. DEFERRED ON DELETE CASCADE, SET NULL or SET DEFAULT |
||||||
|
> > |
||||||
|
> > Again I'd say that the action should be suppressed |
||||||
|
> > because a matching PK row is present at transaction end - |
||||||
|
> > it's not the same old row, but the constraint itself is |
||||||
|
> > still satisfied. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I'm not actually sure on the cascade, set null and set default. The |
||||||
|
way they are written seems to imply to me that it's based on the state |
||||||
|
of the database before/after the command in question as opposed to the |
||||||
|
deferred state of the database because of the stuff about updating the |
||||||
|
state of partially matching rows immediately after the delete/update of |
||||||
|
the row which wouldn't really make sense when deferred. Does anyone know |
||||||
|
what other systems do with a case something like this all in a |
||||||
|
transaction: |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
create table a (a int primary key); |
||||||
|
create table b (b int references a match full on update cascade |
||||||
|
on delete cascade deferrable initially deferred); |
||||||
|
insert into a values (1); |
||||||
|
insert into a values (2); |
||||||
|
insert into b values (1); |
||||||
|
delete from a where a=1; |
||||||
|
select * from b; |
||||||
|
commit; |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M3901@postgresql.org Fri Jan 26 17:00:24 2001 |
||||||
|
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) |
||||||
|
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA10576 |
||||||
|
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:00:24 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) |
||||||
|
by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0QLtVq53019; |
||||||
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:55:31 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M3901@postgresql.org) |
||||||
|
Received: from smtp1b.mail.yahoo.com (smtp3.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.135]) |
||||||
|
by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0QLqmq52691 |
||||||
|
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:52:48 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
(envelope-from janwieck@yahoo.com) |
||||||
|
Received: from j13.us.greatbridge.com (HELO jupiter.greatbridge.com) (216.54.52.153) |
||||||
|
by smtp.mail.vip.suc.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 22:49:57 -0000 |
||||||
|
X-Apparently-From: <janwieck@yahoo.com> |
||||||
|
Received: (from janwieck@localhost) |
||||||
|
by jupiter.greatbridge.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04701; |
||||||
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:02:32 -0500 |
||||||
|
From: Jan Wieck <janwieck@Yahoo.com> |
||||||
|
Message-Id: <200101262202.RAA04701@jupiter.greatbridge.com> |
||||||
|
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in FOREIGN KEY |
||||||
|
In-Reply-To: <200101262110.QAA06902@candle.pha.pa.us> from Bruce Momjian at "Jan |
||||||
|
26, 2001 04:10:22 pm" |
||||||
|
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> |
||||||
|
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:02:32 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
CC: Jan Wieck <janwieck@Yahoo.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, |
||||||
|
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> |
||||||
|
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL68 (25)] |
||||||
|
MIME-Version: 1.0 |
||||||
|
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
||||||
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit |
||||||
|
Precedence: bulk |
||||||
|
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org |
||||||
|
Status: RO |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Bruce Momjian wrote: |
||||||
|
> Here is another bug: |
||||||
|
> |
||||||
|
> test=> begin; |
||||||
|
> BEGIN |
||||||
|
> test=> INSERT INTO primarytest2 VALUES (5,5); |
||||||
|
> INSERT 18757 1 |
||||||
|
> test=> UPDATE primarytest2 SET col2=1 WHERE col1 = 5 AND col2 = 5; |
||||||
|
> ERROR: deferredTriggerGetPreviousEvent: event for tuple (0,10) not |
||||||
|
> found |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Schema? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Jan |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
-- |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#======================================================================# |
||||||
|
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # |
||||||
|
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. # |
||||||
|
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
_________________________________________________________ |
||||||
|
Do You Yahoo!? |
||||||
|
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M3864@postgresql.org Fri Jan 26 10:07:36 2001 |
||||||
|
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) |
||||||
|
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA17732 |
||||||
|
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:07:35 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) |
||||||
|
by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0QF3lq12782; |
||||||
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:03:47 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M3864@postgresql.org) |
||||||
|
Received: from mailout00.sul.t-online.com (mailout00.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.16]) |
||||||
|
by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0QF0Yq12614 |
||||||
|
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:34 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
(envelope-from peter_e@gmx.net) |
||||||
|
Received: from fwd01.sul.t-online.com |
||||||
|
by mailout00.sul.t-online.com with smtp |
||||||
|
id 14MALp-0006Im-00; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:59:45 +0100 |
||||||
|
Received: from peter.localdomain (520083510237-0001@[212.185.245.73]) by fmrl01.sul.t-online.com |
||||||
|
with esmtp id 14MALQ-1Z0gkaC; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:59:20 +0100 |
||||||
|
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:07:27 +0100 (CET) |
||||||
|
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> |
||||||
|
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> |
||||||
|
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, |
||||||
|
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> |
||||||
|
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.1 items |
||||||
|
In-Reply-To: <3A70FA87.933B3D51@tpf.co.jp> |
||||||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101261604030.769-100000@peter.localdomain> |
||||||
|
MIME-Version: 1.0 |
||||||
|
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
||||||
|
X-Sender: 520083510237-0001@t-dialin.net |
||||||
|
Precedence: bulk |
||||||
|
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org |
||||||
|
Status: RO |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Hiroshi Inoue writes: |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> What does this item mean ? |
||||||
|
> Is it the following ? |
||||||
|
> |
||||||
|
> begin; |
||||||
|
> insert into pk (id) values (1); |
||||||
|
> update(delete from) pk where id=1; |
||||||
|
> ERROR: triggered data change violation on relation pk" |
||||||
|
> |
||||||
|
> If so, isn't it a simple bug ? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Depends on the definition of "bug". It's not spec compliant and it's not |
||||||
|
documented and it's annoying. But it's been like this for a year and the |
||||||
|
issue is well known and can normally be avoided. It looks like a |
||||||
|
documentation to-do to me. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
-- |
||||||
|
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/ |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M3876@postgresql.org Fri Jan 26 13:07:10 2001 |
||||||
|
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) |
||||||
|
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA26086 |
||||||
|
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:07:09 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) |
||||||
|
by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0QI4Vq30248; |
||||||
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:04:31 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M3876@postgresql.org) |
||||||
|
Received: from sectorbase2.sectorbase.com ([208.48.122.131]) |
||||||
|
by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0QI3Aq30098 |
||||||
|
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:03:11 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
(envelope-from vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM) |
||||||
|
Received: by sectorbase2.sectorbase.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) |
||||||
|
id <D49FAF71>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:41:23 -0800 |
||||||
|
Message-ID: <8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D32C1@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com> |
||||||
|
From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> |
||||||
|
To: "'Jan Wieck'" <janwieck@Yahoo.com>, |
||||||
|
PostgreSQL HACKERS |
||||||
|
<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, |
||||||
|
Bruce Momjian <root@candle.pha.pa.us> |
||||||
|
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Open 7.1 items |
||||||
|
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:02:59 -0800 |
||||||
|
MIME-Version: 1.0 |
||||||
|
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) |
||||||
|
Content-Type: text/plain; |
||||||
|
charset="iso-8859-1" |
||||||
|
Precedence: bulk |
||||||
|
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org |
||||||
|
Status: RO |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> > FOREIGN KEY INSERT & UPDATE/DELETE in transaction "change violation" |
||||||
|
> |
||||||
|
> A well known issue, and I've asked multiple times how exactly |
||||||
|
> we want to define the behaviour for deferred constraints. Do |
||||||
|
> foreign keys reference just to a key value and are happy with |
||||||
|
> it's existance, or do they refer to a particular row? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I think first. The last is closer to OODBMS world, not to [O]RDBMS one. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Consider you have a deferred "ON DELETE CASCADE" constraint |
||||||
|
> and do a DELETE, INSERT of a PK. Do the FK rows need to be |
||||||
|
> deleted or not? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Good example. I think FK should not be deleted. If someone really |
||||||
|
want to delete "old" FK then he can do |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
DELETE PK; |
||||||
|
SET CONSTRAINT ... IMMEDIATE; -- FK need to be deleted here |
||||||
|
INSERT PK; |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Consider you have a deferred "ON DELETE RESTRICT" and "ON |
||||||
|
> UPDATE CASCADE" constraint. If you DELETE PK1 and UPDATE PK2 |
||||||
|
> to PK1, the FK2 rows need to follow, but does PK2 inherit all |
||||||
|
> FK1 rows now so it's the master of both groups? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Yes. Again one can use SET CONSTRAINT to achieve desirable results. |
||||||
|
It seems that SET CONSTRAINT was designed for these purposes - ie |
||||||
|
for better flexibility. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Though, it would be better to look how other DBes handle all these |
||||||
|
cases -:) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Vadim |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
From janwieck@yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 12:20:27 2001 |
||||||
|
Received: from smtp6.mail.yahoo.com (smtp6.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.69.103]) |
||||||
|
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA22158 |
||||||
|
for <root@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:20:27 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
Received: from j13.us.greatbridge.com (HELO jupiter.greatbridge.com) (216.54.52.153) |
||||||
|
by smtp.mail.vip.suc.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 17:20:26 -0000 |
||||||
|
X-Apparently-From: <janwieck@yahoo.com> |
||||||
|
Received: (from janwieck@localhost) |
||||||
|
by jupiter.greatbridge.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03196; |
||||||
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:30:05 -0500 |
||||||
|
From: Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com> |
||||||
|
Message-Id: <200101261730.MAA03196@jupiter.greatbridge.com> |
||||||
|
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.1 items |
||||||
|
To: PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>, |
||||||
|
Bruce Momjian <root@candle.pha.pa.us> |
||||||
|
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:30:05 -0500 (EST) |
||||||
|
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL68 (25)] |
||||||
|
MIME-Version: 1.0 |
||||||
|
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
||||||
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit |
||||||
|
Status: RO |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Bruce Momjian wrote: |
||||||
|
> Here are my open 7.1 items. Thanks for shrinking the list so far. |
||||||
|
> |
||||||
|
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
|
> |
||||||
|
> FreeBSD locale bug |
||||||
|
> Reorder INSERT firing in rules |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I don't recall why this is wanted. AFAIK there's no reason |
||||||
|
NOT to do so, except for the actual state of beeing far too |
||||||
|
close to a release candidate. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Philip Warner UPDATE crash |
||||||
|
> JDBC LargeObject short read return value missing |
||||||
|
> SELECT cash_out(1) crashes all backends |
||||||
|
> LAZY VACUUM |
||||||
|
> FOREIGN KEY INSERT & UPDATE/DELETE in transaction "change violation" |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A well known issue, and I've asked multiple times how exactly |
||||||
|
we want to define the behaviour for deferred constraints. Do |
||||||
|
foreign keys reference just to a key value and are happy with |
||||||
|
it's existance, or do they refer to a particular row? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Consider you have a deferred "ON DELETE CASCADE" constraint |
||||||
|
and do a DELETE, INSERT of a PK. Do the FK rows need to be |
||||||
|
deleted or not? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Consider you have a deferred "ON DELETE RESTRICT" and "ON |
||||||
|
UPDATE CASCADE" constraint. If you DELETE PK1 and UPDATE PK2 |
||||||
|
to PK1, the FK2 rows need to follow, but does PK2 inherit all |
||||||
|
FK1 rows now so it's the master of both groups? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
These are only two possible combinations. There are many to |
||||||
|
think of. As said, I've asked before, but noone voted yet. |
||||||
|
Move the item to 7.2 anyway, because changing this behaviour |
||||||
|
would require massive changes in the trigger queue *and* the |
||||||
|
generic RI triggers, which cannot be tested enough any more. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Jan |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Usernames limited in length |
||||||
|
> Does pg_dump preserve COMMENTs? |
||||||
|
> Failure of nested cursors in JDBC |
||||||
|
> JDBC setMaxRows() is global variable affecting other objects |
||||||
|
> Does JDBC Makefile need current dir? |
||||||
|
> Fix for pg_dump of bad system tables |
||||||
|
> Steve Howe failure query with rules |
||||||
|
> ODBC/JDBC not disconnecting properly? |
||||||
|
> Magnus Hagander ODBC issues? |
||||||
|
> Merge MySQL/PgSQL translation scripts |
||||||
|
> Fix ipcclean on Linux |
||||||
|
> Merge global and template BKI files? |
||||||
|
> |
||||||
|
> |
||||||
|
> -- |
||||||
|
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us |
||||||
|
> pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 |
||||||
|
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue |
||||||
|
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 |
||||||
|
> |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
-- |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#======================================================================# |
||||||
|
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # |
||||||
|
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. # |
||||||
|
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
_________________________________________________________ |
||||||
|
Do You Yahoo!? |
||||||
|
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in new issue