Idea :
Create a function with the same name as your function, but which takes a
timestamp as an argument, converts it to a string according to your
specifications, then calls your function which needs a string.
Postgresql will decide which function to call according to the types of
the
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 19:28 +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> > With
> > shared_buffers = 3000 # min 16, at least max_connections*2, 8KB each
> > sort_mem = 128000 # min 64, size in KB
>
> 128 MB for sort_mem is too much, consider that in this way each backend can
> use 128 M
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... I'd like to know
> if there is a specific reason there's no default timestamp -> varchar
> cast.
There is an explicit cast from timestamp to varchar, at least in recent
releases:
regression=# select 'now'::timestamp::varchar;
varchar
> I could be reading it incorrectly, but the paragraph was outside any
> attributed quote:
You are correct that the specific comment about pg not thriving was outside
any quotes. However, given the totality of the references to pg I think it
was a summary of some things Rivot said. As for the poin
Scott Ribe wrote:
That's because he's a marketeer, not a developer or a sysadmin. He only
understands market-speak.
No, I think he fully understands the relative position of PostgreSQL and its
level of use. Think about it, why did he choose to disrespect this one
particular open-source database o
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 13:30, David Parker wrote:
> > In an article about IBM's releasing Cloudscape to Apache,
> >
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1630856,00.asp
> >
> > eWeek says:
> >
> > "The developer community for Cloudscape now consists of about 80 IBM
> >
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 13:05, CSN wrote:
> Just wondering, is updateable views slated for a
> future version of Postgresql? In addition to using
> rules that is.
It's on the todo list. Of course, the just means someone someday should
do it, but it's not on anybody's personal todo list that I know
> That's because he's a marketeer, not a developer or a sysadmin. He only
> understands market-speak.
No, I think he fully understands the relative position of PostgreSQL and its
level of use. Think about it, why did he choose to disrespect this one
particular open-source database out of all the
CSN wrote:
>
> Just wondering, is updateable views slated for a
> future version of Postgresql? In addition to using
> rules that is.
Yes, I think some folks are working on it for the next release.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi people,
i am using mysql and i am having the following problem
I know this is not the correct to ask this problem. but i am need of
help urgently thats why i posted this here.
but please help
i have a table with the following fields .when i try to enter data i get
the following error.any
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 13:30, David Parker wrote:
> In an article about IBM's releasing Cloudscape to Apache,
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1630856,00.asp
>
> eWeek says:
>
> "The developer community for Cloudscape now consists of about 80 IBM
> developers, Rivot said. IBM of course a
Dunno about the problem, but "reindex primary_index_name" will probably
fix it...
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 01:04:43PM -0700, A Palmblad wrote:
> Today, queries to one of our tables started giving the following error:
> ERROR: root page of "primary_index_name" has level 0, expected 3.
>
>
In an article about IBM's releasing Cloudscape to Apache,
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1630856,00.asp
eWeek says:
"The developer community for Cloudscape now consists of about 80 IBM
developers, Rivot said. IBM of course anticipates that population will
explode when the open-source comm
Today, queries to one of our tables started giving
the following error:
ERROR: root page of
"primary_index_name" has level 0, expected 3.
What would cause that? We did have a earlier
today, methinks they are probably related. It's a big table, in the
neighbourhood of 45 million
14 matches
Mail list logo
