Farhan Mughal wrote:
> Does PostgreSQL support a Virtual Database like Oracle?
No, but we have 2 external approaches:
http://veil.projects.postgresql.org/curdocs/index.html
http://www.kaigai.gr.jp/index.php?sepgsql
--
Best regards,
Hannes Dorbath
---(end of broadcast)-
On 10/08/2007 21:42, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Show us the query when you're done, I'm sure there are enough folks
who'd like to see your solution.
Here's what I came up with:
select distinct ip.person_id from items_for_people ip
where exists (
(
select item_id from items
where
On 10/08/2007 22:03, Carlos OrtÃz wrote:
Select * from people where person_id in (
Select person_ID from Items_for_people group by Person_id Having Count(*)
= (
Select count(*) from Items Where is_required = true))
That seems to work fine! I'd only change "having count(*) = .
Johan Runnedahl wrote:
> I would appreciate any constructive help on this.
A constructive answer is to grab VMware Server or VirtualBox and a PG
LiveCD. That way you are up and running in 15 minutes and can get your
work done instead of fighting with an installer / OS combo that is known
to be pro
2007/8/11, Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > Hello
> >
> > I found strange postgresql's behave. Can somebody explain it?
>
> There's a bug since it should work for any number, but we've likely missed
> something. I'm not sure why 2 references work,
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> I found strange postgresql's behave. Can somebody explain it?
There's a bug since it should work for any number, but we've likely missed
something. I'm not sure why 2 references work, as I'd expect it to stop
working after 1 with the likely ca
Louis-David Mitterrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But, I found something fishy that particular server:
> uruk:~# hwclock
> Sat 11 Aug 2007 10:47:36 AM CEST -0.630123 seconds
> uruk:~# hwclock --utc
> Sat 11 Aug 2007 12:47:39 PM CEST -0.600430 seconds
If this is PC-typ
2007/8/11, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Sorry, I reread your original post. My initial reading was wrong.
>
> To make this work I think you'll need to set these constraints to be deferred.
>
> --
it works with deferred constraints . It's strange, it works with two
columns but dowsn't wo
Sorry, I reread your original post. My initial reading was wrong.
To make this work I think you'll need to set these constraints to be deferred.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2007/8/11, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > checked_by INT REFERENCES users (id) ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE SET
>> > NULL,
>>
>> > CONTEXT: SQL statement "UPDATE ONLY "public"."tasks" SET
2007/8/11, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > checked_by INT REFERENCES users (id) ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE SET NULL,
>
> > CONTEXT: SQL statement "UPDATE ONLY "public"."tasks" SET "worker" =
> > NULL WHERE $1 OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) "worke
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> checked_by INT REFERENCES users (id) ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE SET NULL,
> CONTEXT: SQL statement "UPDATE ONLY "public"."tasks" SET "worker" =
> NULL WHERE $1 OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) "worker""
This says you mistyped the constraint above to refer
Hello
I found strange postgresql's behave. Can somebody explain it?
Regards
Pavel Stehule
CREATE TABLE users (
id integer NOT NULL,
name VARCHAR NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
INSERT INTO users VALUES (1, 'Jozko');
INSERT INTO users VALUES (2, 'Ferko');
INSERT INTO users VALUES (3, 'Samko'
On fim, 2007-08-09 at 20:55 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I want to to know if these two are functionally equivalent. Is this:
>
> Create table "sales"
> (
> "saleid" BigSerial NOT NULL,
> "userid" Bigint NOT NULL,
> "parent_saleid" Bigint NOT NULL,
> primary key ("saleid")
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:59:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Karsten Hilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:11:29AM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> >> So if I understand correctly, a timestamp_tz is ...
>
> > ... stored as UTC in the backend
>
> > ... sent to cli
Hello.
I'm doing a Trigger Procedure in pl/pgSQL. It makes some kind of auditing.
I think that it's working alright except for the next line:
EXECUTE 'INSERT INTO ' || quote_ident(somedynamictablename) || ' SELECT
new.*';
PostgreSQL keeps telling me: "ERROR: NEW used in query that is not in a
16 matches
Mail list logo
