From: | Darko Prenosil <darko(dot)prenosil(at)finteh(dot)hr> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] One SQL to access two databases. |
Date: | 2002-11-30 12:19:27 |
Message-ID: | 200211301219.27275.darko.prenosil@finteh.hr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Friday 29 November 2002 17:14, Joe Conway wrote:
> pilsl(at)goldfisch(dot)at wrote:
> >>>Does anybody know if postgres support a SQL statement that handles two
> >>>diferent databases (in the same server)?
> >>
> >>Have a look at the contrib/dblink directory in the standard postgresql
> >>distro.
> >
> > Didnt find such a directory (or a similar one) in my 7.1.3-distri and
> > this would be very helpful to save db-handles in persistent programs.
>
> dblink was first released with PostgreSQL 7.2. But as of yesterday, a "new
> and improved" PostgreSQL 7.3 was released with a much improved dblink. If
> you can, upgrade to 7.3.
>
> Joe
>
Hi Joe !
Now when the 7.3 release is out,can we get back to plpq ?
I did send You sources before vacation, and You said that You will take a
look.
I hope I am not disturbing You. If You think that this is bad Idea, I give up
hope that we merge this functions into dblink, an I will do it manually for
my projects as I did before(I must say that this is a frustration for me
because I must tweak the code with every new release of postgres).
I am not using new plpq functions jet, so even if You do not want to merge,
maybe You can give me some comments(as I said before, I do not understand
memory management and memory contests to well) ?
Thank You in advance.
Regards !
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pginfo | 2002-11-30 13:21:50 | vacuum full analyze problem |
Previous Message | snpe | 2002-11-30 11:31:07 | Re: 7.4 Wishlist |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Horacio Miranda | 2002-11-30 14:54:11 | about ODBC |
Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 2002-11-30 11:37:41 | Re: Planning for improved versions of IN/NOT IN |