On 05/01/2011 01:50 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Somebody is making a very specific claim that Postgres can support a
limited number of rows
Did you find this via
http://www.reversecurity.com/2011/04/new-details-from-psn-hack.html ?
That was the only Google-indexed source leading to it I fou
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:37 PM, gvim wrote:
> I've been looking through the Date/Time functions and operators on the docs
> and can't find anything obvious to do this simple task - filter a date
> column for entries which are later than a specified date.
select * from table where datecol > '2001-
On 05/01/2011 07:37 PM, gvim wrote:
> I've been looking through the Date/Time functions and operators on the
> docs and can't find anything obvious to do this simple task - filter a
> date column for entries which are later than a specified date.
>
> gvim
>
Try "WHERE date > '2011-04-01'" replaci
I've been looking through the Date/Time functions and operators on the docs and
can't find anything obvious to do this simple task - filter a date column for
entries which are later than a specified date.
gvim
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make change
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Karsten Hilbert
wrote:
> I must agree with a recent poster
> that what appears to identify as a natural key often really
> isn't or else becomes not so later on. It's vastly easier to
> then deal with that by re-defining constraints without
> having to touch prima
My database crashed and server won't start ...
--
LOG: database system was interrupted while in recovery at 2011-05-01
19:31:37 CEST
HINT: This probably means that some data is corrupted and you will have
to use the last backup for recovery.
LO
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:14:07AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> I took a quick look at the gnumed schema and found it to be generally
> very thorough and excellent. If you're going to use surrogate keys,
> that's they way to do it.
Good to know since I'm only a lowly medical doctor not
having
Tom Lane wrote:
Jasen Betts writes:
On 2011-05-01, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Somebody is making a very specific claim that Postgres can support a
limited number of rows:
"INPS (a data forensics team) said that there is 7 main Databases all
hosted at different data centers but linked over a
Stefan Keller writes:
> I'm doing an equality search with success with the '->' operator on
> the same field 'tags' like in this query (1):
> -- Count all restaurants in database ("amenity = restaurant''):
> select count(*) from osm_all_v
> where hstore(tags)->'amenity'='restaurant'
> This query
Jasen Betts writes:
> On 2011-05-01, Mark Morgan Lloyd
> wrote:
>> Somebody is making a very specific claim that Postgres can support a
>> limited number of rows:
>>
>> "INPS (a data forensics team) said that there is 7 main Databases all
>> hosted at different data centers but linked over a
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the hint! I'm actually doing a GROUP BY with an inquality
search (HAVING...) and still get long lasting queries, see query (2)
below.
I'm doing an equality search with success with the '->' operator on
the same field 'tags' like in this query (1):
-- Count all restaurants in
On 2011-04-30, Jon Smark wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does Postgresql perform short-circuit boolean evaluation both in SQL
> and PL/pgSQL functions?
sometimes.
the planner will rearrange what you write,
for this reason it is very likely that
> SELECT count(*) FROM foobar WHERE foobar.id = $1 AND do_s
On 2011-05-01, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Somebody is making a very specific claim that Postgres can support a
> limited number of rows:
>
> "INPS (a data forensics team) said that there is 7 main Databases all
> hosted at different data centers but linked over a type of 'cloud' Each
> database
Hoorah! I was able to complete my single PL/pgSQL function to create history
records tracking individual field value changes generically for all my tables.
Some developers call this an "audit trail", though an accountant might say
otherwise.
Thanks for all the replies.
Special thanks to John
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 07:50, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
Somebody is making a very specific claim that Postgres can support a limited
number of rows:
"INPS (a data forensics team) said that there is 7 main Databases all hosted
at different data centers but linked over a ty
On 04/30/11 10:50 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Somebody is making a very specific claim that Postgres can support a
limited number of rows:
"INPS (a data forensics team) said that there is 7 main Databases all
hosted at different data centers but linked over a type of 'cloud'
Each database us
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 07:50, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
> Somebody is making a very specific claim that Postgres can support a limited
> number of rows:
>
> "INPS (a data forensics team) said that there is 7 main Databases all hosted
> at different data centers but linked over a type of 'cloud' Eac
hi,
group by 1 means group by first output column
order by 2 means order by second output column ascending
Am 30.04.2011 19:00, schrieb Joel Reymont:
What is the meaning of
group by 1 order by 2
e.g. what to the numbers 1 and 2 stand for?
What would change if I do the follo
On 04/28/2011 10:46 PM, Basil Bourque wrote:
In PL/pgSQL, how does one generically access the fields of the OLD or NEW
record?
I've tried code such as this:
'NEW.' || quote_ident( myColumnNameVar ) || '::varchar'
But when run by an "EXECUTE" command, I get errors such as:
ERROR: missin
19 matches
Mail list logo
