On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Chul Su Park wrote:
> > > foo=> select lo_unlink(raster) from image;
> > > ERROR: function int4(oid) does not exist
> > >
> > > Why builtin "lo_unlink" is defined as accepting int4 not oid? Then do I
> > > have to do
> > > foo=> select lo_unlink(int4(oid_text(raster))) from image;
> > > OR
> > > define "raster" as int4? I don't think all these are good idea... Then
> > > how to delete "lo" in the "psql"?
> > I've just tested this, and I get the same thing (on 6.3.2, and yesterdays
> > CVS versions).
> > lo_unlink should be defined with oid (which I thought was the case).
> > A temporary way round is:
> > select lo_unlink(raster::int4) from image;
> > Hackers: Is there any reason why it's defined as an int4?
> > --
> > Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk or petermount(at)earthling(dot)net
> foo=> select count(lo_unlink(raster::int4)) from bar;
> ERROR: function int4(oid) does not exist
> I'm using v6.3.2(patched) on SunSolaris/Redhat5.0
What patches have you applied?
I'm running Redhat 4.1 on two machines. One has 6.3.2 (unpatched), the
other the current CVS version, and the workaround worked.
Infact on the current CVS machine, I just re-ran initdb, and tried the
workaround again, and it worked.
I'm just wondering if one of the patches has removed int4(oid).
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk or petermount(at)earthling(dot)net
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
************ Someday I may rebuild this signature completely ;-) ************
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Edmund Mergl||Date: 1998-06-13 18:07:42|
|Subject: Wishlist for next version: group by clause|
|Previous:||From: Chul Su Park||Date: 1998-06-13 10:20:35|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?|