Thread: Issues w/ 7.1 to 7.2 upgrade.

Issues w/ 7.1 to 7.2 upgrade.

From
"Diehl, Jeffrey"
Date:
Hi all.

I just upgraded from 7.1 to 7.2, mainly because of the facts that vacuum
doesn't do table locks and I thought that "replace into" would be in 7.2.

Anyway, I don't see that "replace into" is there...

Also, I noticed a slight difference that caught me off guard:

If I try to insert '1234567890' into a varchar(5) under 7.1, the value of
the field will be '12345'.

If I try it under 7.2, I get an error.

Needless to say, I learned a bit more about my dataset this morning...
<grin>

Mike Diehl,
Network Monitoring Tool Devl.
Sandia National Laboratories.
(505) 284-3137
jdiehl@sandia.gov



Re: Issues w/ 7.1 to 7.2 upgrade.

From
"Josh Berkus"
Date:
Mike,

> I just upgraded from 7.1 to 7.2, mainly because of the facts that
>  vacuum
> doesn't do table locks and I thought that "replace into" would be in
>  7.2.
> 
> Anyway, I don't see that "replace into" is there...

Nope.  I hadn't had the impression from the list traffic that thedevelopers ever considered letting in this bit of
non-standardSQL. While it's undoubtedly useful, it's not in the SQL 92 spec and a*lot* of extra programming would be
requiredto support it (forexample, those of us who use UPDATE and INSERT triggers might findourselves re-writing them
all).

Remember:  If you really, really want "replace into", Postgres *is* anopen-source database.  You are always welcome to
hackyour own"replace into" patch.
 

> Also, I noticed a slight difference that caught me off guard:
> 
> If I try to insert '1234567890' into a varchar(5) under 7.1, the
>  value of
> the field will be '12345'.
> 
> If I try it under 7.2, I get an error.

Another annoying change per the spec, I believe.  Personally, thischange made me happy because unexpected truncations
hadpreviouslyescaped my notice.  But it did lead to a spate of emergency bug fixesin my code.
 

-Josh

______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________                                      Josh Berkus Complete
informationtechnology      josh@agliodbs.com  and data management solutions       (415) 565-7293 for law firms, small
businesses       fax 621-2533   and non-profit organizations.      San Francisco
 


Re: Issues w/ 7.1 to 7.2 upgrade.

From
Thomas Good
Date:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Diehl, Jeffrey wrote:

> Hi all.
> 
> I just upgraded from 7.1 to 7.2, mainly because of the facts that vacuum
> doesn't do table locks and I thought that "replace into" would be in 7.2.
> 
> Anyway, I don't see that "replace into" is there...

Hi Mike,

I'm anxiously awaiting DROP COLUMN (rather than using the workaround
of SELECTing desired attributes into a new relation, dropping the old
rel and renaming the new...)

I was hoping it would be in 7.2 but not yet.  :-(

> Also, I noticed a slight difference that caught me off guard:
> 
> If I try to insert '1234567890' into a varchar(5) under 7.1, the value of
> the field will be '12345'.
> 
> If I try it under 7.2, I get an error.

I found this in using 7.2 beta - it mimics Oracle's response to a string
that exceeds the len of the attribute.  I kinda liked the unstated substr()
behaviour.  But I guess it was a bit sloppy.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Good                                         tomg@admin.nrnet.org
Programmer/Analyst                                  thomas@sqlclinic.net
Residential Services, Behavioral Health Services
Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers                                      
--
SQL Clinic - An Open Source Clinical Record            www.sqlclinic.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------