Re: MariaDB
I thought someone, even Monty, would have chimed in here, but... On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 16:28 +1000, Nick Edwards wrote: Question, is building the source exactly the same as mysql? yes Meaning, if I build it with set CMAKE options building mysql, can I use those exact same options building mariab? yes, but don't forget to do the usual mysql_upgrade love the ignore dir option too, finally no more stupid lost+found databases :) PS, I wish you guys would use a real list server and not that launchpad trash :) They have a proper announce list, though I've not seen, nor really looked hard for, any users list, they use mailman so likely do somewhere. attachment: face-smile.png signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: MySQL Community Server 5.6.13 has been released
On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 10:41 +0200, Sebastien FLAESCH wrote: Hello, On 07/31/2013 01:03 PM, Sunanda Menon wrote: * The C API libmysqlclient shared-library .so files now have version 18.1.0 (up from version 18.0.0 used in MySQL 5.5). (Bug #16809055) What impact has this change regarding backward compatibility with existing C programs linked to older 5.6 libmysqlclient.so libs and what is the general policy regarding the backward compatibility for this library - where can we find clear statements in the doc? Oracle has a zero care factor, there latest 5.5 release is also still broken with the reported viossl bug All fixed by two short lines, as was provided to them 3, yes, now THREE mysql 5.5 releases ago when they broke it, yet they still publish new 5.5 releases that are broken and have been bug'd for best part of this year, the concerns we had when Oracle bought Sun have rung true. Why they dont just give it back to Monty I'll never know. Chances are if they are this lazy about it, then 5.6 will likely be broken too, and there is no incentive from here to upgrade, or even remain with mysql, period, I'm one who has a great deal of patience, but I think 3 broken releases is pushing the friendship, I'm quickly getting sick and tired of patching mysql for every new release because they are too lazy to. I am later this week going to put MariaDB on our devnet, and see how it shapes up. I do expect it to be good drop in replacement, since SuSE and Red Hat have dumped mysql for mariadb. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: remove me from the mailing
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 16:18 +, attee...@gmail.com wrote: You don't have to be a jackass to him/her. He's always a jackass, but, I must say, it is a rare occasion that I agree, and, hte *idiot* who posted all those lines was certainly more of a jackass. The CAN SPAM act requires that a single link, with no further action on behalf of the recipient, must be provided to unsubscribe. CAN SPAM Act? Sorry, no such named Act exists in my country., and I'm certain it would not include mailing lists due to their nature and design, and only an *idiot* lawmaker would say you need that one line click, since, for nearly 20 years that has been, and still is a very popular method for spammers to know who has read their junk and that they have reached a valid mailbox I see no such thing in the footer. The website is terrible to navigate on mobile devices... I don't see how I can unsubscribe myself either and I feel OP's pain. snip please MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql ^ WTF is that? an invitation to dinner? it is however well known for a very very long time that oracle have wrecked this list completely, it is non compliant in so many ways its a joke (think all those OoO messages you get when you post), and no one at oracle knows anyone who is in a position to fix it. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: How to change max simultaneous connection parameter in mysql.
On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 21:35 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 18.03.2013 21:01, schrieb Rick James: 20 is plenty if your pages run fast enough if your server can not serve more than 20 simultaionous requests you are not doing any serious things or he's using a 286 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: MySQL Client (libmysqlclient) compatibility policy
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 10:57 +0100, Sebastien FLAESCH wrote: I have several versions of MySQL installed on my Linux, and it appears that the libmysqlclient versions have changed in the 5.x version line: /opt3/dbs/mys/4.1.24/lib/libmysqlclient.so.14 /opt3/dbs/mys/5.0.90/lib/libmysqlclient.so.15 /opt3/dbs/mys/5.1.35/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16 /opt3/dbs/mys/5.1.51/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16 /opt3/dbs/mys/5.4.0/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16 /opt3/dbs/mys/5.5.1/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16 /opt3/dbs/mys/5.5.19/lib/libmysqlclient.so.18 /opt3/dbs/mys/5.6.10/lib/libmysqlclient.so.18 Asking for trouble, rebuild what depends on latest, and get rid of all that ancient crud. Its not like it changes with every release, so its only a very minor inconvenience, and if you have separate servers for each functions like SP's do, then it's an even smaller inconvenience per server. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ignore-db-dir
Shaun, Is this option planned for backport into 5.5.x ? Cheers signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GA download reverted back to 5.5.24?
For those interested 5.5.25a has been released overnight, long after oracle claimed it was there. frankly., I think they ought to have use 5.5.26. To those who replied to me directly, a few facts... 1/ it never affected me directly - my gripe with them was on principle and their actions (or lack thereof) towards those that were affected 2/ to the wanker who said people deserve what they get for untesting on DEV bed first ... this is true _IF_ it was a major release. (as I hope we all do) _BUT_ you don't expect to get fucked over by a point release, to have that happen, shows incompetenceon the part of the software developer, not the users. On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 14:15 +1000, Noel Butler wrote: I wonder if you would have the same opinion to say your Operating System environment, Apache, php, any mainstream server daemon, how about they pull the current version for a serious bug, but dont tell anyone... Oracle have been quick to announce new releases of mysql, but failed to issue a notice saying uhoh, you better not use it instead, putting a small notice, where, on a fricken manual page FFS. who the hell reads that! and they say use version a which does not even exist, I'd hate to think of how many high profile sites are at risk of being screwed over by yet MORE oracle incompetence. No one would think any less of them if they sent that notice, many would be appreciative, but to hide such a serious issue that was enough for them to withdraw and remove that version, is outright despicable. On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 22:58 -0400, Govinda wrote: That was nice of oracle to announce this wasn't it ...(/sarcasm) I am not aligned with any side.. and I am also not known/qualified/respected in this group enough to make much of a statement... but: IMHO, In almost all matters, *appreciation* is the only approach that will serve... let alone sustain happiness... ...and especially when we consider what little we must give to have right to use MySQL. Sure, desire for better communication/usability makes total sense.. but I am just also observing/suggesting: please add (positively) to the atmosphere.. for everyones' sake. Just us humans under the hood. -Govinda signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GA download reverted back to 5.5.24?
That was nice of oracle to announce this wasn't it ...(/sarcasm) On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 16:35 -0400, Shawn Green wrote: On 6/28/2012 9:41 PM, Hank wrote: I am in the process of reporting a new MySQL bug in 5.5.25 (doesn't exist in 5.5.24) - see: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=65740 And I just noticed that at the mysql.com website, the GA downloads have just been reverted back to 5.5.24. Is there a blog or update site that might explain why they retracted 5.5.25? thanks, -Hank Check the manual: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/news-5-5-25.html -- Shawn Green MySQL Principal Technical Support Engineer Oracle USA, Inc. - Hardware and Software, Engineered to Work Together. Office: Blountville, TN signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GA download reverted back to 5.5.24?
On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 11:34 +1000, Noel Butler wrote: That was nice of oracle to announce this wasn't it ...(/sarcasm) not to mention source of 25a can not be found anywhere on any mirror I looked at, or the download page fucking hopeless On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 16:35 -0400, Shawn Green wrote: On 6/28/2012 9:41 PM, Hank wrote: I am in the process of reporting a new MySQL bug in 5.5.25 (doesn't exist in 5.5.24) - see: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=65740 And I just noticed that at the mysql.com website, the GA downloads have just been reverted back to 5.5.24. Is there a blog or update site that might explain why they retracted 5.5.25? thanks, -Hank Check the manual: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/news-5-5-25.html -- Shawn Green MySQL Principal Technical Support Engineer Oracle USA, Inc. - Hardware and Software, Engineered to Work Together. Office: Blountville, TN signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GA download reverted back to 5.5.24?
I wonder if you would have the same opinion to say your Operating System environment, Apache, php, any mainstream server daemon, how about they pull the current version for a serious bug, but dont tell anyone... Oracle have been quick to announce new releases of mysql, but failed to issue a notice saying uhoh, you better not use it instead, putting a small notice, where, on a fricken manual page FFS. who the hell reads that! and they say use version a which does not even exist, I'd hate to think of how many high profile sites are at risk of being screwed over by yet MORE oracle incompetence. No one would think any less of them if they sent that notice, many would be appreciative, but to hide such a serious issue that was enough for them to withdraw and remove that version, is outright despicable. On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 22:58 -0400, Govinda wrote: That was nice of oracle to announce this wasn't it ...(/sarcasm) I am not aligned with any side.. and I am also not known/qualified/respected in this group enough to make much of a statement... but: IMHO, In almost all matters, *appreciation* is the only approach that will serve... let alone sustain happiness... ...and especially when we consider what little we must give to have right to use MySQL. Sure, desire for better communication/usability makes total sense.. but I am just also observing/suggesting: please add (positively) to the atmosphere.. for everyones' sake. Just us humans under the hood. -Govinda signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ATT: List OWNER/MODERATOR
List is broken, in many ways. Amongst many of its failures, the two current biggest is: 1/ This lists bounce messages are clueless they do not include the reject reason 2/ mysql-owner address STILL points to a sun address which of course is rejected as they no longer host this list. *sigh*
Re: ATT: List OWNER/MODERATOR
On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 03:40 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 18.05.2012 02:51, schrieb Noel Butler: List is broken, in many ways. Amongst many of its failures, the two current biggest is: 1/ This lists bounce messages are clueless they do not include the reject reason which bounce-messages are you meaning? may it be you mean the stupid auto-replies caused by a poor list-server missing the Precedence: bulk or Precedence: list headers? Nope, however I have brought that up before, I'm not going to blacklist those senders since its likely through no fault of their own.. I'm talking about the messages that oracle were unable to deliver to us, quoting the msd ID's and the non-existant reason in their bounce header example, which is now pointless as it does not include the MTA error code information. I dare say its oracles screwup, since this list seems to be have been moved from sun to oracle and oracle just gone lets test, well ok, we can send a msg through, it goes out to users it must works and thats it, totally forgotten about, theres a reason why many dont use ezmlm, its evil in this day and age so many far better products about. yes, this is really the only mailig-list out there causing vacation-replies if the rcpt MTA is working correct and no mailadmin can do anything :-( maybe they can, if we can find one LOL
Re: Remote mysql too slow
On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 06:14 -0500, Johnny Withers wrote: right speed and duplex. It seems that every new server I get now has to have the speed and duplex explicitly set instead of auto negotiate. Many of the cisco switches are notorious for this. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Out of office replies
People, most of you are/should be professionals. It is about time your mail servers were configured to never send out of office bullshit replies in response to mailing list messages. I realise this is difficult here and is oracles fault for running an abandonware mail server (qmail) and antiquated list server (ezmlm) that fails to send Precedence headers, but come on now, do your part since oracle have no clue, I mean you don't want your mail servers entered into DNSBL's now do you... /rant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: mysql apache md5
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 13:51 +0100, Johan De Meersman wrote:
Umm... I'm no crypto guru, but I've never heard of MD5 having variants, let
alone a salt. MD5 is MD5 is MD5. APR, incidentally, is the Apache Runtime,
afaik - part of the build kit for apache modules.
I strongly suspect your problem is on another level.
Actually, he is correct. Though, the Apache variant of md5 is a chosen
improved security method, it really shouldn't be called MD5 since it is
not compatible with, well, base MD5 :)
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/misc/password_encryptions.html
MD5
$apr1$ + the result of an Apache-specific algorithm using an
iterated (1,000 times) MD5 digest of various combinations of a
random 32-bit salt and the password. See the APR source file
apr_md5.c for the details of the algorithm.
MD5
$ openssl passwd -apr1 myPassword
$apr1$qHDFfhPC$nITSVHgYbDAK1Y0acGRnY0
I agree Apache should probably not be calling it MD5. Perhaps it needs
renaming and MD5 as we all know it, be, MD5.
and for this reason I will xpost to devs list for some clear (maybe)
explanation as to why it was called this.
I don't think Edward's questioning is unreasonable, given the popularity
of LAMP combination, they are touted to work hand in hand, but as he
pointed out, they are not, even exampled by openssl wanting -apr1 not
-md5 to be compatible, so I can see how
this would be a problem with MySQL insert of md5(foo) not be recognised
by an Apache md5 wanting.
Noel
- Original Message -
From: Edward avanti edward.ava...@gmail.com
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Monday, 7 March, 2011 5:54:02 AM
Subject: Re: mysql apache md5
everything to do with mysql
I try make it clearer, sorry for not so in first post
customer relationship manager add users into mysql
we want not to use apache auth of encrypt, but use md5 for longer
password
apache use variant of md5, called md5 -apr, but mysql md5 only uses
the -1
type
so, when CRM add userlike
INSERT INTO users (..other`appass`) values (...other...
'MD5('$PASS')
the md5 -1 that mysql uses is not compatible so apache auth fail. the
variant is apaprently add
$apr1$up to 8 chars$md5passwordhere,
making allabove line the salted md5.
I try to get mysql and apache to play nice, but thy do not because
mysql and
apache not use same method, hence my attempt to work around, even SHA
same
affect, i am try use anything but DES encrypt('$PASS')
sadly that only thing that work happily witrh each other.
openssl have ability to do this so not sure why mysql not have option
Sure someone had same problem and simple work around to have mysql
use
correct md5, but no google fu work
--
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
libmysqlclient.so.16 no version information available
Arg! This abomination 5.5 is causing more headaches, postfix will not run, I've heard dovecot may not either, amongst others postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by postcon /etc/init.d/postfix start * Starting Postfix Mail Transport Agent postfix postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by postconf) /usr/sbin/postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by /usr/sbin/postconf) /usr/sbin/postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by /usr/sbin/postconf) [fail] *sigh* Why was this removed, or is this another side affect of that amazing winblozy P.O.S cmake? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: libmysqlclient.so.16 no version information available
On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 10:52 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: You need mysql-5.1 compat-libs package or rebuild applications against 5.5 for feddora/rhel type compat-mysql51 in google there are packages from remi since he builds 5.5 this is nothing new and was the same with 5.1 while applications was linked against 5.0 HUH? These are all source builds, I did not have this problem previously, I don't use package maintainers versions. I have source builds of mysql, postfix, dovecot, apache, php, bind - pretty much all the common main daemons, i don't trust distro butchers , err, i mean maintainers, for these critical apps. thanks anyway. Am 31.01.2011 09:24, schrieb Noel Butler: Arg! This abomination 5.5 is causing more headaches, postfix will not run, I've heard dovecot may not either, amongst others postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by postcon /etc/init.d/postfix start * Starting Postfix Mail Transport Agent postfix postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by postconf) /usr/sbin/postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by /usr/sbin/postconf) /usr/sbin/postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by /usr/sbin/postconf) [fail] *sigh* Why was this removed, or is this another side affect of that amazing winblozy P.O.S cmake? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: libmysqlclient.so.16 no version information available
On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 11:42 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Have you rebuilt all depending applications AFTER rebuild of mysql 5.5? yes, built 5.5 a month ago, only today rebuilt postfix (upgraded 2.7.2 to 2.8.0) This is a common problem, google fu indicates others have same problem, some of them claim reverting to 5.5.7 corrects this error, there was major changes from 5.5.7 to 5.5.8, but I don't see the sense in downgrading to what was regarded as unstable mysql version to correct it. just as well this is on a dev testbed and not production, more of a reason production will stay on 5.1 I think. BTW: I also make my own source-builds with optimized flags but not dumb configure make, the better way is to build clean distro-packages and install them with the package-manager, this way you would I totally disagree. but thats the beauty about open source, each to their own. when there is only one version of the lib installed it should not be an issue, I've been building tarballs for 20 years, so do understand how the OS works and how to best use configure :) Am 31.01.2011 11:38, schrieb Noel Butler: On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 10:52 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: You need mysql-5.1 compat-libs package or rebuild applications against 5.5 for feddora/rhel type compat-mysql51 in google there are packages from remi since he builds 5.5 this is nothing new and was the same with 5.1 while applications was linked against 5.0 HUH? These are all source builds, I did not have this problem previously, I don't use package maintainers versions. I have source builds of mysql, postfix, dovecot, apache, php, bind - pretty much all the common main daemons, i don't trust distro butchers , err, i mean maintainers, for these critical apps. thanks anyway. Am 31.01.2011 09:24, schrieb Noel Butler: Arg! This abomination 5.5 is causing more headaches, postfix will not run, I've heard dovecot may not either, amongst others postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by postcon /etc/init.d/postfix start * Starting Postfix Mail Transport Agent postfix postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by postconf) /usr/sbin/postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by /usr/sbin/postconf) /usr/sbin/postconf: /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.16: no version information available (required by /usr/sbin/postconf) [fail] *sigh* Why was this removed, or is this another side affect of that amazing winblozy P.O.S cmake? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
re: mysqlcheck 5.5 -a -o
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 14:50 +0200, Michael Widenius wrote: Hi! Noel == Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net writes: Noel In all previous versions we were able to run -Aao --auto-repair Noel Anyone know WHY, in 5.5, -a and -o , must be run separately, this Noel is kind of silly I think, requiring two passes now. I checked the 5.0 code and even there you could not run 'a' and 'o' separately. mysqlcheck always used the later option. Ahhh, so all that time it was silently ignoring the -a ? But now borks instead of ignores, my bad :) However as optimize for most engines that supports it does an automatic analyze, you can solve your problem by just removing the 'a' option above. Thanks Monty Regards, Monty PS: Have you tried out MariaDB yet? I regrettably confess, not yet signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
mysqlcheck 5.5 -a -o
In all previous versions we were able to run -Aao --auto-repair Anyone know WHY, in 5.5, -a and -o , must be run separately, this is kind of silly I think, requiring two passes now. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Autostart not working for me in 5.5.8 version
Hi Joerg, On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 18:59 +0100, Joerg Bruehe wrote: Hi Noel, all! Noel Butler wrote: On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 10:08 -0300, Alejandro Bednarik wrote: You are right. In previous version init script have a default value, now is empty. mysql 5.1..53 - basedir=/usr/local/mysql mysql-5.5.8 - basedir=. /me ponders at who the IDIOT is that decided that cmake is the way of mysql now. I mean WTF... It was the ones who realized that two different build mechanisms (autotools for Unix, cmake for Windows) will always cause divergence, when one is maintained with a change and the other isn't. Being database people, we know the importance of consistency ;) I can tell its done by windowsy people, it has pretty colours :) seriously though , it's almost as bad as trying to figure out what to give postifx hehe And in the real world, many sysadmins have to build the database servers for the database admins, I've made my opinion known about cmake so I'll leave my cursing at that. /me sticks with 5.1 Do as you like, but realize that 5.1 won't see major development in the future and will be put on extended support only in due time. For what we use it for, it's likely fine, (user auth/radius/web/mail etc etc etc) nothing complex. So if anybody encounters differences between 5.1 and 5.5 in such settings which aren't documented (= by intention, or unavoidable), please file bugs to get them fixed. Well, the documentation could be a little more in depth, if you remove method A, and if method B is completely compatible, then there must be detailed information, it is not very good for time management to spend hours looking over the website, yes forge.mysql.com has a handy reference, but the bit about replacing, for instance plugins=max, it is not clear what we need to include, we know what is default, and some examples of to add given the example given, but no reference to the max server, without time consuming research to see what plugins=max includes, compare, then find equivalent DINSTALL_blah=1's to add, I think it is a backwards step, and you're likely to see more cussing as more go to upgrade. Nice thing though, my original my.cnf didnt cause it to bail out upon restart, however I only installed it on one very light use server. want to lay with it a bit before it goes on anything too serious. Cheers attachment: face-smile.png signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [NEWS]
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 14:06 +0200, Sergey Lazurenko wrote: Hello! Hello! I'd like to place basic information about our products. I'll be appreciate you. Best Regards, Sergey Lazurenko -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=noel.but...@ausics.net hello! thank you very much! I unfortunately did not, and will not, take the time to read your spam, but please rest assured relevant sender IP and domains are now entered into a DNSBL Again, thank you very much, and Merry Christmas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: phpMyAdmin and other management tools
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 07:38 -0400, David Stoltz wrote: Hi Folks, I'm currently using phpMyAdmin to manage the mySQL databases. I'm wondering what most people like to use? I know there is mySQL Workbench, which I haven't really fooled with yet command line (mysql prompt etc) and phpmyadmin. command line perfect for quick instructions phpmyadmin for its ease with larger DB structures, also, most users wont have command access and its simple for them, it also doesn't require you to install anything on your machine, I've tried a few in the past, but none of them match up to phpmyadmin, and Marc (its author) is always very approachable. Cheers
Re: Database Quotas
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 16:27 -0700, Tim Gustafson wrote: Hi, I'm not sure if this is already an open issue or not - a Google search resulted in various discussions but I didn't find any open support/feature request. It would be really handy if during the create database statement, one could specify something like: CREATE DATABASE foo QUOTA=10G; to limit the entire database being created to no more than 10GB (in this example). Yes it would be nice. But the best current way is to assign a user to the database and use system quotas. limit available space in the mySQL database folders, but I've read commentary about how that can corrupt the database if the disk becomes full. Ummm, you're going to have the same problem either way when the limit is reached, be it a MySQL quota or system quota, if its full, its full.
Re: Birthday Calendar
does this list not have a dickhead filter? On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 15:17 +, Ganeswar Mishra wrote: Hi Please click on the link below and enter your birthday for me. I am creating a birthday calendar for myself. Don't worry, it'll take less than a minute (and you don't have to enter your year of birth). http://www.birthdayalarm.com/bd2/86622257a687264490b1506094186c258984146d1386 Ganeswar
RE: anniversary selects
Thanks, that's exactly what I was after. On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 14:53 -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: Perhaps the examples here would help you: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/date-calculations.html -Original Message- From: Noel Butler [mailto:noel.but...@ausics.net] Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:47 PM To: mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: anniversary selects Hi, Hope we all had a great Christmas! I am trying to run a query that selects a member every 365 days so we can send them a domain reminder. For my test (because i'm too lazy to count out someone with hundreds of days :) ) I am using a known member at around 27/28 days Now if I use this if finds the member, it doesn't find them if I go under to say 27 days, I've used the DATE_SUB many times before, but never for an exact match. SELECT * FROM `member` WHERE AddedOn=DATE_SUB(CURDATE(), INTERVAL 28 DAY) Now trying to get an exact match, fails. SELECT * FROM `member` WHERE AddedOn=DATE_SUB(CURDATE(), INTERVAL 28 DAY) Also tried one by one up to 30 and down to 25 days, Would someone please mind slapping me a good one reminding me what I've done wrong :) I thought CURDATE ignored the hours/mins/secs etc, but it seems it does not? Thanks Noel
anniversary selects
Hi, Hope we all had a great Christmas! I am trying to run a query that selects a member every 365 days so we can send them a domain reminder. For my test (because i'm too lazy to count out someone with hundreds of days :) ) I am using a known member at around 27/28 days Now if I use this if finds the member, it doesn't find them if I go under to say 27 days, I've used the DATE_SUB many times before, but never for an exact match. SELECT * FROM `member` WHERE AddedOn=DATE_SUB(CURDATE(), INTERVAL 28 DAY) Now trying to get an exact match, fails. SELECT * FROM `member` WHERE AddedOn=DATE_SUB(CURDATE(), INTERVAL 28 DAY) Also tried one by one up to 30 and down to 25 days, Would someone please mind slapping me a good one reminding me what I've done wrong :) I thought CURDATE ignored the hours/mins/secs etc, but it seems it does not? Thanks Noel
