Hi and thanks for answer,
Nope. The problem is suggested, if not exactly clearly explained,
by the error message: casting a literal to ddate isn't a guaranteed
fixed process. Wasn't clear enought to me.For example, suppose you created this table and then
did
alter domain ddate add check (val
> >> > how can i have the same in pg10 as i have had in pg 9.x?
> >>
> >> Move the function call to the FROM clause:
> >>
> >> select g, (g - 1) % 5 + 1 from generate_series(1, 10) g;
> >
> > thank you. That is exact what i need.
> >
> >
> >> > I need it to date type to... if possible.
> >>
> >> T
> > how can i have the same in pg10 as i have had in pg 9.x?
>
> Move the function call to the FROM clause:
>
> select g, (g - 1) % 5 + 1 from generate_series(1, 10) g;
thank you. That is exact what i need.
> > I need it to date type to... if possible.
>
> There is a generate_series() vari
4
5 | 5
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
(10 registros)
how can i have the same in pg10 as i have had in pg 9.x?
I need it to date type to... if possible.
--
Att.
Márcio A. Sepp
> Kumar, Virendra schrieb am 08.01.2018 um 22:12:
> > Can you please let us know if Sub-partitions are supported in PGSQL
> > (declarative partitions) 10.1. If yes can it be list-list partitions.
> > We have a situation where a table is very big having around 2 billion
> > rows and is growing. We w
