> Because I specifically aliased the first task reference using AS task_1.
>
>
Ok, totally. I missed that when I first read your query, didn't read it
closely enough. Thanks.
> You're confused about the input vs. the output. The output columns
> of a view all have to have distinct names, just like you can't do
> "create table foo (f1 int, f1 int)". They can be reading the same
> values, though.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Ok, that makes sense. Tha
> You're confused about the input vs. the output. The output columns
> of a view all have to have distinct names, just like you can't do
> "create table foo (f1 int, f1 int)". They can be reading the same
> values, though.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Ok, that makes sense. Tha
Ryan Murphy writes:
> Interesting, thanks! Do you know why the first one fails instead of doing
> that renaming process, while your version succeeds?
You're confused about the input vs. the output. The output columns
of a view all have to have distinct names, just like you can't do
"create tabl
Hi guys,
You were right, there was something wrong with my original query:
SELECT cast(tasks_start as date) FROM "tasks" WHERE (Date(tasks_start) in
> ('2016-08-10');
I was able to get the expected data using the above query...
Cheers
Patrick
On 09/05/2016 01:13 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
Interesting, thanks! Do you know why the first one fails instead of
doing that renaming process, while your version succeeds?
Because I specifically aliased the first task reference using AS task_1.
On Monday, September 5, 2016, Adrian Klaver mailt
Interesting, thanks! Do you know why the first one fails instead of doing
that renaming process, while your version succeeds?
On Monday, September 5, 2016, Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 09/05/2016 12:55 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
>
>> Hello, I have a question about views in Postgres.
>>
>> Given a tabl
On 09/05/2016 12:55 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
Hello, I have a question about views in Postgres.
Given a table like so:
create table todo (
id serial,
task text,
done_time timestamp default null
);
it is legal (though perhaps not advised, by some) to query it like so:
select task, * from to
Hello, I have a question about views in Postgres.
Given a table like so:
create table todo (
id serial,
task text,
done_time timestamp default null
);
it is legal (though perhaps not advised, by some) to query it like so:
select task, * from todo;
This gives a result with 2 redundant "ta
On 09/05/2016 11:38 AM, Mimiko wrote:
Hello to all.
I want to move applications to postgres. But there are applications
which can use only mysql or local mdb or mssql. For now I run a mysql
server to which this applications are connected. Long time ago I've
encountered a federeted module for mys
Hello to all.
I want to move applications to postgres. But there are applications
which can use only mysql or local mdb or mssql. For now I run a mysql
server to which this applications are connected. Long time ago I've
encountered a federeted module for mysql to allow to store data in
postgr
Hello
On 09/05/2016 05:56 PM, Charles Clavadetscher wrote:
Hello
On 09/05/2016 04:19 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 09/05/2016 05:45 AM, Durumdara wrote:
Dear PG-masters!
We want to put more databases to one server, to "public" schema:
DB_A, DB_B, DB_C.
The PUBLIC schema is contained within a
Hello,
On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 14:45 +0200, Durumdara wrote:
> Dear PG-masters!
>
> We want to put more databases to one server, to "public" schema:
> DB_A, DB_B, DB_C.
> And users:
> US_A, US_B, US_C, and Main_Admin.
> We want to setup the environment.
> Every simple user can access his database:
>
Hello
On 09/05/2016 04:19 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 09/05/2016 05:45 AM, Durumdara wrote:
Dear PG-masters!
We want to put more databases to one server, to "public" schema:
DB_A, DB_B, DB_C.
The PUBLIC schema is contained within a database not the other way
around, so further explanation is
On 09/05/2016 05:45 AM, Durumdara wrote:
Dear PG-masters!
We want to put more databases to one server, to "public" schema:
DB_A, DB_B, DB_C.
The PUBLIC schema is contained within a database not the other way
around, so further explanation is necessary.
And users:
US_A, US_B, US_C, and Main
I think, it worth to try pg_hba.conf configuration[1].
[1]. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/auth-pg-hba-conf.html
Regards,
Amul Sul
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Durumdara wrote:
> Dear PG-masters!
>
> We want to put more databases to one server, to "public" schema:
> DB_A, D
Dear PG-masters!
We want to put more databases to one server, to "public" schema:
DB_A, DB_B, DB_C.
And users:
US_A, US_B, US_C, and Main_Admin.
We want to setup the environment.
Every simple user can access his database:
DB_A - US_A
DB_B - US_B
DB_C - US_C
They can't access other databases only
Good morning,
>I looked at your purchase, and did not see any Postgres version. Am I missing
>(/misunderstanding) something here?
It’s not yet available, please wait until the end of the week
That being said, the pricing will be the same as for MySQL.
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Prod
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Martijn Tonies (Upscene Productions) <
m.ton...@upscene.com> wrote:
> Hello Tim,
>
> We will be releasing Database Workbench with PostgreSQL support later this
> week, it’s a Windows application but works fine on Linux/MacOS via Wine.
>
> Here’s the link to our web
Hello Tim,
We will be releasing Database Workbench with PostgreSQL support later this
week, it’s a Windows application but works fine on Linux/MacOS via Wine.
Here’s the link to our website, feel free to check some screenshots
http://www.upscene.com/database_workbench/
With regards,
Martijn To
20 matches
Mail list logo
