I was going to redo those queries this coming weekend anyhow (as thats when
I'll be getting some spare time next), as there are still some problems with
the existing ones.

Any other "minor" changes I should keep an eye out for?

Idea: As we have this type of query in more than one part of the source tree
(ie: psql, jdbc, probably odbc), should we have a section in the
documentation containing common queries, like: retrieving a list of tables,
views etc?

I haven't seen a definitive one in there, but it would be useful, and have
the other ones in the source be based on that one? Every time a change to
the system tables is made, unless everyone who maintains the code that's
dependent on it hears about it, the queries can quickly get out of sync.

Peter

-- 
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support Officer, Maidstone Borough Council
Email: petermount@maidstone.gov.uk
WWW: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk
All views expressed within this email are not the views of Maidstone Borough
Council


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 2:58 AM
To: Peter Mount
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org; pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: JDBC now needs updates for large objects


Peter,

  As of current sources, large objects no longer occupy tables named
'xinvNNNN' nor indexes named 'xinxNNNN'.  Therefore, it'd be appropriate
to remove the special tests that exclude tables/indices named that way
from the tests in DatabaseMetaData.java.  I have not done this because
I'm not in a position to test changes to the JDBC driver; would you
please add it to your todo list?

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:00:25 +0100
Peter Mount <petermount@maidstone.gov.uk>
RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects
Peter Mount <petermount@maidstone.gov.uk> writes:
> Idea: As we have this type of query in more than one part of the source tree
> (ie: psql, jdbc, probably odbc), should we have a section in the
> documentation containing common queries, like: retrieving a list of tables,
> views etc?

That's a good thought.  It'd be a useful practice to review such
standard queries from time to time anyway.  For example, now that
outer joins work, a lot of psql's backslash-command queries could
be simplified (don't need the UNION ALL WITH SELECT NULL hack).

Anyone have time to work up a list?

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:44:01 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [INTERFACES] RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects 
sorry,

i must have missed something.  when did outer join's start working?  is there a patch that i can build?

tonys.

> That's a good thought.  It'd be a useful practice to review such
> standard queries from time to time anyway.  For example, now that
> outer joins work, a lot of psql's backslash-command queries could
> be simplified (don't need the UNION ALL WITH SELECT NULL hack).
> 
> Anyone have time to work up a list?
> 
> regards, tom lane


Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:15:26 -0400
"Tony Simopoulos" <karkalis@earthling.net>
Re: RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects 
"Tony Simopoulos" <karkalis@earthling.net> writes:
> i must have missed something.  when did outer join's start working?

They're in current CVS (7.1-to-be).  CVS tip is pretty unstable at
the moment with WAL stuff going on, but you could use it as a playpen
installation.  Or wait for 7.1 beta, which should be out real soon now.

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:56:32 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects 