On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 15:41 +, Neil Tiffin
wrote:
> I really like the standardization that PostgreSQL uses in auto
> generating default names. The rule I use is to always use the auto
> generated names unless the object is referenced routinely in code. In
> most cases developers don’t care
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 08:08:02PM +0100, Oliver Kohll - Mailing Lists wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2009, at 17:23, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
Is there a way when creating a table to limit it to one row? That
is,
without using a stored procedure?
I searched the documentation, but did
On 8 Jun 2009, at 17:23, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Is there a way when creating a table to limit it to one row? That
is,
without using a stored procedure?
I searched the documentation, but didn't find anything.
CREATE TABLE x (...);
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX x_only_one_row ON ((1));
very cleve
Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:56:10 -0300
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: [GENERAL] [pgsql-general] Daily digest v1.8030 (22 messages)
X-Mailing
well (see below). Seems like
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has a problem.
Rainer
Path: news.hub.org!postgresql.org!pgsql-general-owner+m130868
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: pgsql.general
Subject: [pgsql-general] Daily digest v1.8030 (22 messages)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:56:10 -0300
Organization: Hub.Org N
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brett Hoerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Colin Wetherbee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I received eight of these unwanted digests last night and early
this morning, after never seeing them before. Is this a new
configuration change that I need
"Brett Hoerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Colin Wetherbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I received eight of these unwanted digests last night and early this
>> morning, after never seeing them before. Is this a new configuration
>> change that I need to go per
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Colin Wetherbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I received eight of these unwanted digests last night and early this
> morning, after never seeing them before. Is this a new configuration
> change that I need to go personalize?
I was wondering the same thing, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message Digest
Volume 1 : Issue 8030 : "index" Format
Messages in this Issue:
200803/1324: Re: casting from integer to boolean
200803/1325: Re: casting from integer to boolean
200803/1326: Re: casting from integer to boolean
200803/1327: Re: Survey: renaming/r
Message Digest
Volume 1 : Issue 8037 : "index" Format
Messages in this Issue:
200803/1458: Delete after trigger fixing the key of row numbers
200803/1459: Re: SELECT DISTINCT ON and ORDER BY
200803/1460: Re: SELECT DISTINCT ON and ORDER BY
200803/1461: Re: SELECT DISTINCT ON and ORDER BY
Message Digest
Volume 1 : Issue 8035 : "index" Format
Messages in this Issue:
200803/1421: Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries
(createdb, createuser...)
200803/1422: Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb,
createuser...)
200803/1423: Re: Using tables in other
Message Digest
Volume 1 : Issue 8036 : "index" Format
Messages in this Issue:
200803/1440: Re: Need help on how to backup a table
200803/1441: Persistent user-defined functions
200803/1442: Merge Joins and Views
200803/1443: Re: Persistent user-defined functions
200803/1444: PL/pgSQL Do
Message Digest
Volume 1 : Issue 8034 : "index" Format
Messages in this Issue:
200803/1400: Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb,
createuser...)
200803/1401: Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb,
createuser...)
200803/1402: Re: Survey: renaming/removin
Message Digest
Volume 1 : Issue 8031 : "index" Format
Messages in this Issue:
200803/1346: Re: RULES and QUALIFICATION for INSERT
200803/1347: Re: How to "use" database?
200803/1348: Re: RULES and QUALIFICATION for INSERT
200803/1349: Performance of update
200803/1350: Re: Performance o
Message Digest
Volume 1 : Issue 8032 : "index" Format
Messages in this Issue:
200803/1364: very delayed autovacuum on certain tables
200803/1365: Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb,
createuser...)
200803/1366: Re: Performance of update
200803/1367: Re: casting
Message Digest
Volume 1 : Issue 8030 : "index" Format
Messages in this Issue:
200803/1324: Re: casting from integer to boolean
200803/1325: Re: casting from integer to boolean
200803/1326: Re: casting from integer to boolean
200803/1327: Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (cre
Message Digest
Volume 1 : Issue 8033 : "index" Format
Messages in this Issue:
200803/1382: Re: Using tables in other PostGreSQL database
200803/1383: Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb,
createuser...)
200803/1384: Re: Timezones in 8.2.7
200803/1385: Re: Timezo
On Nov 6, 2006, at 21:00 , Marc Munro wrote:
For an alternative approach, you might want to check out Veil:
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/veil
Addendum: I took Veil to be undocumented since the source archive
only comes with Doxygen scripts; I thought the small "here" link on
the Veil home
On Nov 6, 2006, at 21:00 , Marc Munro wrote:
A fairly cursory look at your proposed model suggests that it will
work,
but is likely to have serious performance problems. The issue is
not so
much the simple queries on single views, but the complex queries your
developers will almost certainl
On Sat, 2006-04-11 at 06:13 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 23:08:47 +0100
> From: Alexander Staubo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: PgSQL General
> Subject: Per-row security
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I am designing an application which requires fine-grained role-base
Sylvain,
All of the things you want to do can be done using Veil:
http://veil.projects.postgresql.org/
Be warned though, it is not simple. If you want privileges at the
column level, or based on a where clause, you will have to use
techniques like Veil's secured views.
It's better to avoid this
Florian,
Reponses from, an ex-Oracle DBA, below.
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 11:51 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:29:24 +0200
> From: Florian Ledoux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: pg_dump, MVCC and consistency
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Nikolay,
I think I must be missing your point. Even if updatable views existed,
I would still have created Veil. The real point of Veil is to control
each type of operation (insert, update, etc) on each record.
With updatable views, you could avoid a lot of the tedium of creating
the instead-of
Brew,
Yep we tried that. It did nothing. The same pg_hba.conf change worked
when we later tried it with the client disconnected.
__
Marc
> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:36:01 -0400 (EDT)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: pg_ctl reload breaks our client
> Me
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-07-27 10:03:15 -0400:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> ># [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-07-27 08:56:24 -0400:
> >>How does one receive all mail to this list in a daily digest?
> >
> > Have you read the mailing list usage notes on the web site?
>
> set pgsql-general digest
Yes
set pgsql-general digest
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-07-27 08:56:24 -0400:
How does one receive all mail to this list in a daily digest?
Have you read the mailing list usage notes on the web site?
---(end of broadcast)---
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-07-27 08:56:24 -0400:
> How does one receive all mail to this list in a daily digest?
Have you read the mailing list usage notes on the web site?
--
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man. You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't
How does one receive all mail to this list in a daily digest?
-Andrew
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Yeah.. I'm with you.. I don't really know what all of this is about - I
like the way the Postgres mailing list works as it is Are any of the
changes being discussed here going to change the content or how we
receive the mailing lists?..
What exactly is the problem they thing exists anyways?..
29 matches
Mail list logo
