Re: [SQL] Howto turn an integer into an interval?

[Erik Wasser]

On Tuesday 05 October 2004 13:44, you wrote:

> If you know for sure that you are keeping resend_interval in seconds,
> then try as follows:
>
> foodb=# SELECT (59::text||' secs')::interval;
>  interval
> --
>  00:00:59
> (1 row)


Thanks for this solution and the others. It's now working very fine. B-)

-- 
So long... Fuzz

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: [SQL] Database Backup

[sklassen]

* sreejith s <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-06 08:09:38 +0530]:

> Now i am working on Linux database server/Windows Client project.  I
> have a doubbt. How to take DB backup from my windows client machine
> where DB is intsalled at linux server. pg_dump doen't works from
> windows client butr its working from local server machine. How to
> rectify the problem.

What errors are you getting?

> Then ho w to call pl/pgsql function from VB/.NET.

I don't know if there's some VB/.NET specific voodoo, but the
following should work:

SELECT foo() AS result;

-- 
Steven Klassen - Lead Programmer
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication & Support Services, (503) 667-4564

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

[SQL] Table locks

[Jaime Casanova]

 --- Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: 
> Andreas Seltenreich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jake Stride writes:
> >> I thought of doing:
> >> SELECT max(jobno) from jobs where companyid=1;
> 
> > I think SELECT FOR UPDATE should work fine here.
> 
> Nope; he'll get something like
> 
> regression=# select max(unique1) from tenk1 for
> update;
> ERROR:  SELECT FOR UPDATE is not allowed with
> aggregate functions
> 
> His best bet is probably
> 
>   BEGIN;
>   LOCK TABLE jobs;
>   SELECT max(jobno) from jobs where companyid=1;
>   INSERT INTO jobs ...
>   COMMIT;
> 
> This is pretty horrid from a concurrency point of
> view but I don't think
> there's any other way to meet the "no gaps"
> requirement.
> 
> You could reduce the strength of the lock a bit, for
> instance
>   LOCK TABLE jobs IN EXCLUSIVE MODE;
> which would allow readers of the jobs table to
> proceed concurrently,
> but not writers.  If you were willing to assume that
> all inserters into
> jobs are cooperating by explicitly obtaining the
> correct lock, you
> could reduce it to
>   LOCK TABLE jobs IN SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE MODE;
> which is the lowest self-conflicting table lock
> type.  This would allow
> unrelated updates to the jobs table to proceed
> concurrently too (though
> not VACUUMs).  See
> 
>
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/explicit-locking.html
> 
>   regards, tom lane
> 

Hi, 
Talking about lock tables there is a way to do a
select ... for update
and then a
update .. where current of ... 

I think it require a select for update in a cursor.

Thanx in advance,
Jaime Casanova


_
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])