10:12a

Dear all,
This is about the same problem which I have been facing for the past one week and which I am unable to solve.
I have create a function which return +1 of the argument passed.

Function Definition:
CREATE FUNCTION add_one (integer) RETURNS INTEGER AS '
    BEGIN
        RETURN $1 + 1;
    END;
' LANGUAGE 'plpgsql';

The output it was giving was always 1, despite any argument ( not string's ofcourse)
When I viewed the function definition in the pg_proc table...

psql "select proname,prosrc from pg_proc where proname='add_one'"
 proname |                        prosrc
---------+-------------------------------------------------------
 add_one | BEGIN RETURN   +1 END;
(1 row)
______________
Can any body tell me why is the $1 missing..
I am using running postgres 7.3.4 in linux envt

Have a grate day

-----
Warm Regards
Shÿam Peri

II Floor, Punja Building,
M.G.Road,
Ballalbagh,
Mangalore-575003 
Ph : 91-824-2451001/5
Fax : 91-824-2451050 

Subject : Re: [ADMIN] Postgresql UPDATE LOCKS unrelated rows.


Hi Stephan,

Here is the table structure.  FYI, we tried the experiment with mysql
and the concurrency is working fine.

create table TABLE1( TABLE_ID IDENTITY NOT NULL , 
						VA_ID SMALLINT NOT NULL,

						V_STATES_ID SMALLINT NOT
NULL,  
						V_VOL VARCHAR(6), 
						V_OBJ_ID INT, 
						V_CELL SMALLINT, 
						V_POOL VARCHAR(255), 
					FOREIGN KEY(VA_ID) REFERENCES
TABLE2(VA_ID) ON DELETE CASCADE, 
					FOREIGN KEY(V_STATES_ID)
REFERENCES V_STATES(V_STATES_ID),  
					PRIMARY KEY(TABLE_ID));
We were trying to update V_VOL using following statement:

UPDATE TABLE1 SET V_VOL = 'ABCD' WHERE TABLE_ID = 100000

Regards,
Ravi

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:32 PM
To: Ravi T Ramachandra
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Postgresql UPDATE LOCKS unrelated rows.



On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Ravi T Ramachandra wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> We are using postgresql 7.3.2 on lunux platform.   We performed
locking
> test as follows via JDBC:
>
> Started 2 concurrent transaction with autocommit false and isolation

> READ_COMMITTED :
>
> Transaction 1:
> ===========
> Update row 1
> Sleep for 30 seconds
> commit:
>
> Transaction 2:
> ===========
> Updated row 10000
> commit
>
> The second update had to wait for the first update operation to 
> finish. We also made sure that the 2 unrelated rows are not on the 
> same page.
>
> Is this expected behavior ?
> Does update lock the whole table ?

Generally not, but you really haven't given alot of information.  What
is the table layout for the table in question?  Are there foreign keys
involved?


**************************Disclaimer************************************

Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro
Limited is 
'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the
individual
 or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use,
copying 
or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any
manner 
whatsoever is strictly prohibited.

***************************************************************************

---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if
your
      joining column's datatypes do not match