1. 10 12月, 1999 1 次提交
  2. 17 7月, 1999 1 次提交
  3. 16 7月, 1999 1 次提交
  4. 15 7月, 1999 1 次提交
  5. 26 5月, 1999 1 次提交
  6. 14 2月, 1999 1 次提交
  7. 22 1月, 1999 1 次提交
    • B
      The following patch finishes primary key support. Previously, when · c91dbcc5
      Bruce Momjian 提交于
      a field was labelled as a primary key, the system automatically
      created a unique index on the field.  This patch extends it so
      that the index has the indisprimary field set.  You can pull a list
      of primary keys with the followiing select.
      
      SELECT pg_class.relname, pg_attribute.attname
          FROM pg_class, pg_attribute, pg_index
          WHERE pg_class.oid = pg_attribute.attrelid AND
              pg_class.oid = pg_index.indrelid AND
              pg_index.indkey[0] = pg_attribute.attnum AND
              pg_index.indisunique = 't';
      
      There is nothing in this patch that modifies the template database to
      set the indisprimary attribute for system tables.  Should they be
      changed or should we only be concerned with user tables?
      
      D'Arcy
      c91dbcc5
  8. 01 9月, 1998 2 次提交
  9. 19 8月, 1998 1 次提交
    • B
      heap_fetch requires buffer pointer, must be released; heap_getnext · 79715390
      Bruce Momjian 提交于
      no longer returns buffer pointer, can be gotten from scan;
      	descriptor; bootstrap can create multi-key indexes;
      pg_procname index now is multi-key index; oidint2, oidint4, oidname
      are gone (must be removed from regression tests); use System Cache
      rather than sequential scan in many places; heap_modifytuple no
      longer takes buffer parameter; remove unused buffer parameter in
      a few other functions; oid8 is not index-able; remove some use of
      single-character variable names; cleanup Buffer variables usage
      and scan descriptor looping; cleaned up allocation and freeing of
      tuples; 18k lines of diff;
      79715390
  10. 26 2月, 1998 1 次提交
  11. 25 1月, 1998 1 次提交
  12. 09 9月, 1997 1 次提交
  13. 08 9月, 1997 1 次提交
  14. 07 9月, 1997 1 次提交
  15. 19 3月, 1997 1 次提交
  16. 14 11月, 1996 1 次提交
    • M
      Commit of a *MAJOR* patch from Dan McGuirk <djm@indirect.com> · 07a65b22
      Marc G. Fournier 提交于
      Changes:
      
              * Unique index capability works using the syntax 'create unique
                index'.
      
              * Duplicate OID's in the system tables are removed.  I put
                little scripts called 'duplicate_oids' and 'find_oid' in
                include/catalog that help to find and remove duplicate OID's.
                I also moved 'unused_oids' from backend/catalog to
                include/catalog, since it has to be in the same directory
                as the include files in order to work.
      
              * The backend tries converting the name of a function or aggregate
                to all lowercase if the original name given doesn't work (mostly
                for compatibility with ODBC).
      
              * You can 'SELECT NULL' to your heart's content.
      
              * I put my _bt_updateitem fix in instead, which uses
                _bt_insertonpg so that even if the new key is so big that
                the page has to be split, everything still works.
      
              * All literal references to system catalog OID's have been
                replaced with references to define'd constants from the catalog
                header files.
      
              * I added a couple of node copy functions.  I think this was a
                preliminary attempt to get rules to work.
      07a65b22
  17. 05 11月, 1996 1 次提交
  18. 03 11月, 1996 1 次提交
  19. 28 8月, 1996 1 次提交
  20. 26 8月, 1996 1 次提交
  21. 19 8月, 1996 1 次提交
    • M
      Fixes: · 60b1123f
      Marc G. Fournier 提交于
      Here's a couple more small fixes that I've made to make my runtime
      checker happy with the code.  More along the lines of those that
      I sent in the past, ie, a pointer to an array != the name of
      an array.  The last patch is that I mailed about yesterday -- I got
      two replies of "do it", so it's done.  As far as I can tell, however,
      the function in question is never called by pg95, so either way
      it can't hurt...
      
      From:  "Kurt J. Lidl" <lidl@va.pubnix.com>
      60b1123f
  22. 09 7月, 1996 1 次提交