Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Is this the expected behaviour for DDL-query execution?

From: Thomas Johansson <thomas(dot)johansson(at)agama(dot)tv>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is this the expected behaviour for DDL-query execution?
Date: 2009-05-15 09:03:14
Message-ID: 4A0D2FD2.1060508@agama.tv (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Tom Lane wrote:
> What PG version are you using?
8.2.11
>   In 8.3 it seems to work automatically,
> although in prior versions you could well have some problems with cached
> plans not getting invalidated.
Any proposed workaround?

Would SELECTs be affected by this too?

(detaild log message from pg_log
2009-05-15 00:00:17.179 CEST> LOCATION:  make_inh_translation_lists, 
prepunion.c:992
2009-05-15 00:00:17.179 CEST> STATEMENT: 
                UPDATE state_change SET (final_view_time, end_time) = 
(226, 10528) WHERE id = 91332641 AND time = 10523
               
2009-05-15 00:00:17.179 CEST> ERROR:  XX000: could not find inherited 
attribute "id" of relation "state_change_20090430")

> FWIW, we have implemented a trial solution to your original complaint
> for 8.4:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2009-05/msg00208.php
>   
Nice :-) Although for now I will need to get this working on 8.2.x.

Does this leave me with UPDATE triggers as the best viable (is it 
viable?) solution?

Are there, as mentioned in previous post, some way to simulate the way 
the DB behaved when using rules for partitioning?

Best Regards
Thomas

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2009-05-15 10:57:34
Subject: Perl 5.10 vs. PG 8.4 on Win32
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-05-15 07:16:33
Subject: Re: Sorting dates

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group