sad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... now the database seems damaged in strange manner:
> Postgres cannot drop nor create some triggers
> (he was thinking about an hour on the query then i have cancelled)
Could you try it again and get a stack trace to show exactly where it's
hung up?
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... one piece of data I need is the last value for each GROUP BY
> period. Alas, I cannot figure out how to do this.
SELECT DISTINCT ON (rather than GROUP BY) could get this done for you.
regards, tom lane
Paul Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In RDBMSs such as Oracle, stored PL/SQL functions run with the
> permissions of the user that creates the function. Users who are given
> EXECUTE privileges then call the function with the permissions of the
> creator of the function.
Use "SECURITY DEFINE
Hi Colin,
Try
select id, name, a.field1, b.field2, c.field3
from
people p left outer join a on (a.person_id = p id)
left outer join b on (b.person_id = p.id)
left outer join c on (c.person_id = p.id);
HTH
Denis
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Fox" <[EM
"OizOne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would need to create a query that selects each hostname only once with
> username that has the latest timestamp in the logontime column.
SELECT DISTINCT ON is a convenient way to do this. See the "weather
reports" example in the SELECT reference page for a
I'm trying to produce summary data from a table (using PGSQL 7.4.1):
CREATE TABLE readings( "when" timestamp, value integer );
The summary will be based on various time periods. I've been using date_trunc(
'hour', "when" ) and GROUP BY for the min/max/average readings with no problems.
But, one
"Thomas Wegner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello, whats wrong with this SQL?:
> SELECT L.*, A."lastname" AS firma_value, T."string_val1" AS type_value
> FROM "lists" L, "typecode" T
> LEFT JOIN "adressen" A ON A."id_adressen"=L."firma"
> WHERE T."id_typecode"=L."lists_type"
> ORDER BY L."id_lis
Hi all,
From what I've seen in the archives, questions like this have kind of
been answered in the past, but I was wondering if there have been any
changes in this area, or if anyone has good ideas on how to do what I'm
about to ask :)
In RDBMSs such as Oracle, stored PL/SQL functions run with
This is what I use to flatten a table, the syntax may not be postgresql
correct but you will get idea.
SELECT
a.name
,SUM (CASE
WHEN EXTRACT(month from a.date) = 1 THEN a.quantity
ELSE 0
END) AS '01'
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 02:30:01AM +, Colin Fox wrote:
> For each person in the people table, they may or may not have a record in
> a, may or may not have a record in b, and may or may not have a record in
> c.
...
> But I'd like to be able to do something like:
>
> select
> id, name,
Dear Jack ,
I suspect that the function would look something like;
CREATE FUNCTION FIND_CHANGED_COLUMNS() RETURNS OPAQUE AS '
BEGIN
-- FOR EACH COLUMN IN THE RECORD:
-- IF ( NEW COLUMNx <> OLD COLUMNx)
-- LOG THE RECORD PRIMARY KEY, COLUMN NAME, OLD VALUE
RETURN NEW;
END;
' LANGU
Hi Stephan,
Thanks for your reply.
But, you will agree that result should be same JUST BEFORE and JUST AFTER
commit ( assuming no one is working on the database and i am the only user
connected.)
Till, the commit ( or end ) is issued, if you query ADDRESS, you will get 4
rows. This is expected
Hi all,
I am using :
PostgreSQL 7.2.3 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2
20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7)
I am facing strange problem..
I have created two tables:
create table contact (id int constraint contact_pk primary key, name text );
create table address (id int constr
hi all again
i have little complex database was used in tests of a program
in ordinal way (no manual expirements with pg_catalog have done)
now the database seems damaged in strange manner:
Postgres cannot drop nor create some triggers
(he was thinking about an hour on the query then i have can
Does anyone know how to write a trigger that would identify which columns
have actually changed in an update (and then log them to an archive).
I suspect that the function would look something like;
CREATE FUNCTION FIND_CHANGED_COLUMNS() RETURNS OPAQUE AS '
BEGIN
-- FOR EACH COLUMN IN THE RE
Hi,
I have the following table in postgres:
hostname | username| logontime
--+---+
ws1 | rautaonn | 2004-01-13 21:25:01.100336
ws1 | administrator | 2004-01-13 21:25:07.706546
ws1 | testuser | 2004
Hi I'm trying to update a table column with a pl/pgsql function and a trigger.
But I didn't managed to make it work so far.
Here's my function code :
CREATE FUNCTION public.calcul_impact() RETURNS opaque AS '
DECLARE
id_line integer;
quantity integer;
single_price real;
total_cost real;
am
Hi,
I would like to know opinions about which approach is better:
Having a table with a field that works as a unique key, or having
several fks that work as a combined key ( all the fks fields )?
Thanks in advance,
K.
---(end of broadcast)---
TI
El Lun 12 Ene 2004 22:12, David Witham escribió:
>DW: Hi,
>DW:
>DW: I have a query that returns data like this:
>DW:
>DW: cust_idcust_name month costrevenue margin
>DW: 991234 ABC 2003-07-01 10 15 5
>DW: 991234
I try pgmail and that is well running ...
fo security, do not use attachment files with your mail ...
try pgmail, you need to use pl/tclu ...
Ben
Sai Hertz And Control Systems wrote:
Dear Uzo ,
Hi,
does postgresql support the ability to email as in SQL Server? I want
to create a trigger which
Hi, all.
I've got a bit of a problem here. I have 4 tables - people, a, b, c (not
the original names).
For each person in the people table, they may or may not have a record in
a, may or may not have a record in b, and may or may not have a record in
c.
Handling the first table (a) is easy:
sel
Hello, whats wrong with this SQL?:
SELECT L.*, A."lastname" AS firma_value, T."string_val1" AS type_value
FROM "lists" L, "typecode" T
LEFT JOIN "adressen" A ON A."id_adressen"=L."firma"
WHERE T."id_typecode"=L."lists_type"
ORDER BY L."id_lists"
I get this:
ERROR: relation "l" does not exist
T
Moving thread over to SQL list as it belongs
there.
Bronx: This certainly is possible, but IMO,
not in one query. Actually doing it will be relatively complex. For
purposes of maintenance, I am thinking that doing this would be better handled
by wrapping at least one view.
CREATE VIEW
23 matches
Mail list logo
