If you mean that the mailing list will stay in-tact with no connection to
Usenet I'm all for that Why not let everyone use whichever works best
for them and if one of them fades away over time, so be it
I happen to like the mailing list and dislike the news groups, perhaps
I'm just too
I then proceeded with implementing my own block-oriented data table
using bytea for storage. This approach has been more flexible but has a
couple of draw-backs:
1. To partially update a bytea field, I have to load it first,
resulting in the overhead of an extra query.
2. There
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Considering using the firefox SQL extension combined with XUL to create a web
application to access a database in PostGreSQL, wondering if anyone has
attempted this, and how it turned out?
Hello,
I have played with it. It was very cool but we haven't put it towards
an
On august 2001 Eniar wrote above this issue the following:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 07:49:06AM -0500, Phillip J. Allen wrote: Hi all, I was reading Bruce Momjian book on PostgreSQL and his chapter on user created functions stated that functions can be written in SQL, PL/PGSQL, PL/TCL,
Using ODBC (unixODBC and iODBC) it is not possible to
retrieve or insert values from fields with a data type of int8 (int64_t in the
gcc compiler) when the operating system where the client is running is Linux.
(Slackware 9.0, 9.1, 10.0 or RH 9.0).
Any suggestion?
Thanks
Jose Mendoza
Jose Mendoza [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would like if it is possible to build a PostgreSQL function in C++.
You can do this to the extent that you're using C++ as a better C.
As soon as you get into any of the interesting features of the language,
like exceptions or RTTI, you're going to have
Jose Mendoza [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Using ODBC (unixODBC and iODBC) it is not possible to retrieve or insert
values from fields with a data type of int8 (int64_t in the gcc compiler)
Try asking about that on the pgsql-odbc list (and provide more detail
of what's not working).
What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so
much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so
much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ...
I think we've discussed this in the past, and the consensus has always
been that more people like it as-is
Fortunately, there are newsreaders that can do the conglomeration for
you; anything that supports virtual groups can do so.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','acm.org').
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html
Feel free to contribute build files. Or work on your
Hi list,
I need to create a list of all rows of the combination of two tables.
For reasons I can't go into, I need this list to be in a single query,
and not write a function to do it.
I thought about doing something like this:
select |COALESCE(table1.field, table2.field) as field from table1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
a (maybe/probably) stupid idea just popped to my mind:
Problem:
I need to search a lot of locations based on distance (simple zipcode match
based on longitude and latitude). However I need to calculate the distance
between each of the nodes,
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought about doing something like this:
select |COALESCE(table1.field, table2.field) as field from table1 full
outer join table2 on false
Perhaps you are looking for UNION ALL? If not, I'm not sure what you
expect this query to mean.
How can I get the table schema for a database or the field schema for a
table? I'm connected remotely via a socket, so I can't just dump it an
inspect the result.
Even if I could just verify the existence of a table/field, that would
work.
Adam Ernst
---(end of
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I need to create a list of all rows of the combination of two tables.
For reasons I can't go into, I need this list to be in a single query,
and not write a function to do it.
I thought about doing something like this:
select
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so
much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ...
The procmail rules I set up for each mailing list to which I subscribe
sets Reply-To to the mailing
Hi,
Just doing some testing at the moment and trying to make a trigger that
consists of a insert statement which as a result of an sql querty!
Is this possible? if so could someone give me some pointers as i am
having no luck trying to get this to work, have even tried this but
still doesnt
Are you saying this is going to make it impossible for me to reply just
to the poster, or is this an option that is set by the user via majordomo?
---
Jim Seymour wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Are you saying this is going to make it impossible for me to reply just
to the poster, or is this an option that is set by the user via majordomo?
No, the poster will still be included as part of the headers ... what
happens, at least under Pine, is that
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Are you saying this is going to make it impossible for me to reply just
to the poster, or is this an option that is set by the user via majordomo?
No, the poster will still be included as part of the headers ... what
I have had a look at this also - although development appears to have
stalled somewhat the idea looks pretty great.
postgresql apache xul/sql/mozilla seems like the makings of an ideal
n tier platform.
Hopefully Jan Varga has not moved on to greener pastures, as this was
apparently a thesis
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, the poster will still be included as part of the headers ... what
happens, at least under Pine, is that I am prompted whther I want to
honor the reply-to, if I hit 'y', then the other headers *are* strip'd
and the mail is set right back to the
Stephan Szabo wrote:
We don't support join conditions like the above at this point. The
message isn't terribly helpful though.
Purely out of interest, what does that message mean? Why aren't they
supported?
Fortunately, I think some variant like
select table1.field from table1
union all
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There was some talk awhile ago of preventing flattening when the
subquery targetlist contains volatile functions, but we didn't
have any consensus that the cure would be better than the disease.
(In particular, since user-defined functions default to being
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 06:41:50PM -0800, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
I need to search a lot of locations based on distance (simple zipcode match
based on longitude and latitude). However I need to calculate the distance
between each of the nodes, so if you are in xxx I need to get the distance
Uwe C. Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I could create a view for every node in the system which calculates the
distance in the result set, making it easy to handle for the application:
select * from view where distance = 50
The problem is, that the data will possibly contain thousands of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 28 November 2004 10:43 pm, Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 06:41:50PM -0800, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
I need to search a lot of locations based on distance (simple zipcode
match based on longitude and latitude). However I
Doug McNaught said:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, the poster will still be included as part of the headers ... what
happens, at least under Pine, is that I am prompted whther I want to
honor the reply-to, if I hit 'y', then the other headers *are* strip'd
and the mail is set
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 28 November 2004 10:49 pm, Greg Stark wrote:
Uwe C. Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I could create a view for every node in the system which calculates the
distance in the result set, making it easy to handle for the application:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We've done quite well with the current setup, so I don't see a need to
tinker with it. I've always found the Reply-to-enabled lists I'm on to
be a more lossy medium.
The basic issue is that the current setup encourages
reply-to-author-and-list,
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
We don't support join conditions like the above at this point. The
message isn't terribly helpful though.
Purely out of interest, what does that message mean? Why aren't they
supported?
I'll take a swing at this.
The
31 matches
Mail list logo
