From: | "Shoaib Mir" <shoaibmir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Filip Rembiałkowski <plk(dot)zuber(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: error messages without schema name |
Date: | 2006-12-13 17:10:16 |
Message-ID: | bf54be870612130910w2982c586xb5258c9c650de14a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
That means you might have the same table in both schemas, so try doing the
following to confirm:
select * from schema1.bar
select * from schema2.bar
You can also set search_path if you want to avoid adding schema name with
database objects:
set search_path = schema1
select * from bar
instead of doing:
select * from schema1.bar
-----------------------
Shoaib Mir
EnterpriseDB (www.enterprisedb.com)
On 12/13/06, Filip Rembiałkowski <plk(dot)zuber(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 06-12-13, Shoaib Mir <shoaibmir(at)gmail(dot)com> napisał(a):
> > You can not truncate table 'foo' because there is referential integrity
> > between 'foo' and 'bar', so try using
> >
> > TRUNCATE nsp2.foo CASCADE;
> >
> > You can find the schema name for 'bar' using a query like:
> >
> > select nspname from pg_namespace where oid = (select relnamespace from
> > pg_class where relname = 'bar');
> this returns 2 schema names. which one is of my "bar"?
>
> Actually, I was asking if this behaviour of postgres is OK?
> I heard from my PostgreSQL teacher, that all such messages should be
> corrected in the source code, to include schema name too.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Antonios Katsikadamos | 2006-12-13 17:16:13 | storage |
Previous Message | Rafal Pietrak | 2006-12-13 17:01:34 | Re: A VIEW mimicing a TABLE |