On Apr 24, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Rhys Stewart
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
type). That being said, I would appreciate that any further
questions I have
not be responded to by single line emails extolling the virtues of
properly
designed schemata, normalization or the like.</minor rant precedes>
Well, I would appreciate getting shorter replies that are to the point
and don't rely on standing on soap boxes and using exercises in
polemics to make their point, but I probably won't get that.
The fact is, if your data is in that format, then the schema is
working against you, and everything you do is going to be much harder
than changing your schema to something that makes some more sense.
Next time I'll hold your hand a bit more, but yesterday I was very far
out of it (I'm not exactly 100% today either) with a bad head cold.
Now, should we have more exchanges to determine who can use the most
flowery of speech or should we talk pgsql and schema changes?
Perhaps his db-fu has yet to bud?
Erik Jones
DBA | Emma®
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
