On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Douglas Eric sekk...@hotmail.com wrote:
I suggest to change this behavior. If one makes a SELECT statement without
any ORDER BY, it would be
clever to automatically sort by the first primary key found in the query, if
any.
The present behavior would still be
* David Johnston:
Immediately upon starting the server I get an incomplete startup
packet log message. Just prior there is an autovacuum launcher
started message.
Like this?
2012-01-23 10:42:55.245 UTC 11545 LOG: database system is ready to accept
connections
2012-01-23 10:42:55.245 UTC
On 24 January 2012 09:29, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Douglas Eric sekk...@hotmail.com wrote:
I suggest to change this behavior. If one makes a SELECT statement without
any ORDER BY, it would be
clever to automatically sort by the first primary key
Chris Angelico wrote
You can share a sequence object between several tables. This can
happen somewhat unexpectedly, as I found out to my surprise a while
ago:
CREATE TABLE tbl1 (ID serial primary key,foo varchar,bar varchar);
INSERT INTO tbl1 (foo,bar) VALUES ('asdf','qwer');
CREATE
Hi.
I have a table with two columns:
create table GroupsOfOrders (
Orders text[]; -- a set of identifiers
Period cube; -- a period of time for all identifiers in field Orders
);
How to create excluding constraint, which prevent overlapping Period
for all orders in a field Orders ?
I've seen written that a b-tree index can't be used on a join with an
OR. Is there a way to optimize a join so that it can use an index for a
query such as:
select
a.partid,a.duedate,coalesce(a.quantity,0)+sum(coalesce(b.quantity,0))
from stat_allocated_components a
left join
pasman pasmański pasma...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
I have a table with two columns:
create table GroupsOfOrders (
Orders text[]; -- a set of identifiers
Period cube; -- a period of time for all identifiers in field Orders
);
How to create excluding constraint, which prevent
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:41:28PM +0100, pasman pasmański wrote:
Hi.
I have a table with two columns:
create table GroupsOfOrders (
Orders text[]; -- a set of identifiers
Period cube; -- a period of time for all identifiers in field Orders
);
How to create excluding constraint,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Alan Hodgson ahodg...@simkin.ca wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2012 07:54:16 PM Andrew Hannon wrote:
It is worth noting that, the slave (seemingly) catches up eventually,
recovering later log files with streaming replication current. Can I trust
this state?
What version of PostgreSQL?
On Jan 24, 2012, at 9:28, Sim Zacks s...@compulab.co.il wrote:
I've seen written that a b-tree index can't be used on a join with an
OR. Is there a way to optimize a join so that it can use an index for a
query such as:
select
Sim Zacks s...@compulab.co.il writes:
I've seen written that a b-tree index can't be used on a join with an
OR.
That's not the case ...
Is there a way to optimize a join so that it can use an index for a
query such as:
select
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:23 PM, panam pa...@gmx.net wrote:
Wow, this is pretty useful. Just to fit it more to my original use case, I
used this:
CREATE TABLE tbl (ID serial primary key,foo varchar,bar varchar); --in
public schema
CREATE TABLE schema1.tbl (LIKE public.tbl INCLUDING ALL);
On Monday, January 23, 2012 10:11:00 pm Sim Zacks wrote:
On 01/23/2012 07:10 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2012 7:32:35 am Sim Zacks wrote:
On 01/23/2012 05:13 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
When I throw in code to make the select only return the correct rows
The select
I'm looking at a database design for tracking the movement/routing of
documents through a workflow using PostgreSQL (version 9.1).
Basically, I have a state diagram for the possible routings and came
up with two different designs for how to implement the tables. As a
quick advance note,
Chris Angelico wrote
I would recommend using an explicit sequence object rather than
relying on odd behavior like this; for instance, if you now drop
public.tbl, the sequence will be dropped too. However, what you have
there is going to be pretty close to the same result anyway.
Oops,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:23 AM, panam pa...@gmx.net wrote:
Wow, this is pretty useful. Just to fit it more to my original use case, I
used this:
CREATE schema schema1;
CREATE schema schema2;
CREATE TABLE tbl (ID serial primary key,foo varchar,bar varchar); --in
public schema
CREATE TABLE
hi,
i just needed to round some numbers down to 4 decimal places but a quick search
indicated that postgresql doesn't support all of the rounding methods so i had
to write this dreadful function:
create or replace function round_down_to_4_decimal_places(amount decimal(12,6))
returns
On 01/24/2012 04:23 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:23 AM, panam pa...@gmx.net wrote:
Wow, this is pretty useful. Just to fit it more to my original use case, I
used this:
CREATE schema schema1;
CREATE schema schema2;
CREATE TABLE tbl (ID serial primary key,foo
Hello
2012/1/25 raf r...@raf.org:
hi,
i just needed to round some numbers down to 4 decimal places but a quick
search
indicated that postgresql doesn't support all of the rounding methods so i had
to write this dreadful function:
create or replace function
On 25 January 2012 05:41, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
2012/1/25 raf r...@raf.org:
hi,
i just needed to round some numbers down to 4 decimal places but a quick
search
indicated that postgresql doesn't support all of the rounding methods so i
had
to write this
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM, panam pa...@gmx.net wrote:
What do you mean with explicit sequence object? An own sequence for each
table per schema?
This:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Barring domains, you can just manually apply the default
21 matches
Mail list logo
