Proposition for columns expanding: table_name.**

just write: SELECT acc_i.**, acc_u.** FROM "order_bt" o LEFT JOIN acc_ready( 'Invoice', app_period(), o ) acc_i ON acc_i.ready LEFT JOIN acc_ready( 'Usage', app_period(), o ) acc_u ON acc_u.ready What you can say about this proposition? -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: [PATCH] distinct aggregates within a window function WIP

er_suma ) filter (where nrow = 1) over (partition by agreement_id) from intermediate Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 10:05:19 AM, you wrote: > Hello Andreas, > Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 6:17:00 PM, you wrote: >> On 4/21/20 5:06 PM, Eugen Konkov wrote: >>> Hi. I read the threa

Re: Feature Request: Report additionally error value

d,? sort_order nulls last,? detail_type nulls last,? price desc nulls last,? detail_amount desc,? service_type nulls last,? detail_id?)?) "me"" with ParamValues: 1='2020-08-01', 2='2', 3='2', 4=undef, 5='2', 6='3493', 7

Re: Feature Request: Report additionally error value

) ) "me"" with ParamValues: 1='2020-08-01', 2='2', 3='2', 4=undef, 5='2', 6='3493', 7='10', 8='2', 9='2'] at /home/kes/work/projects/tucha/monkeyman/lib/MaitreD/Controller/Cart.pm line 828 -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Feature Request: Report additionally error value

f here also will be reported error value. It will shed more light on what is comming wrong Also would be useful if PG point at query where this bad value was calculated or occur. It this possible? Thank you. -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Proposition for autoname columns

or so. I just does not understand those things =( Thank you. -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Proposition for autoname columns

the column be named? Suppose it should be named 'as x' > I think we'd be trying to manage a set of corner cases, and all because > someone didn't want to put "as foo" in their query. And if we generate a > column name in some cases and not in others there will be complaints of > inconsistency. > cheers > andrew > -- > Andrew Dunstan > EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Feature request: Improve allowed values for generate series

useful in my case. Also behavior is not surprising. Wednesday, November 11, 2020, 9:17:28 PM, you wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:12 PM Eugen Konkov <kes-...@yandex.ru> wrote: > So   I   feature  request  to  allow  zero size step for cases when start point is equest to finish

Re: Proposition for autoname columns

Hello Bruce, Wednesday, November 11, 2020, 5:56:08 PM, you wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 05:05:29PM +0200, Eugen Konkov wrote: >> Hello Pgsql-hackers, >> >> When selecting data from json column it named as '?column?' >> tucha=# select info->>'

Re: Feature request: Improve allowed values for generate series

? hm probably with step 0 we always should generate series of one value and exit, despite on finish value. Because with step 0 we always stay at current position, so there is always should be just one value. -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Feature request: Improve allowed values for generate series

feature request to allow zero size step for cases when start point is equest to finish What do you think? -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Proposition for autoname columns

4804 492.12 | 4315 332.98 | 1302 (5 rows) Would it be useful this auto assigned name for column from json? -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: [PATCH] distinct aggregates within a window function WIP

Hello Andreas, Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 6:17:00 PM, you wrote: > On 4/21/20 5:06 PM, Eugen Konkov wrote: >> Hi. I read the thread. >> >> Probably this fiddle will be helpful for testing: >> >> https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_12&fiddle=abe845142a509

[PATCH] distinct aggregates within a window function WIP

this logic may be applied to window functions (did not check this for other functions thought) -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Implementation DISTINCT for window aggregate function: SUM

p;fiddle=97c05203af4c927ff9f206e164752767 Why Window-specific functions do not allow DISTINCT to be used within the function argument list.? Which problems are exists? -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

ss and actually store Zx5 into field -- Delete this insert row -- So user should get back that the value Z was deleted and not Zx5. Correct? but currently user will see Zx5, because next code: OLD.value = uncompress( OLD.value ); does not effect RETURNING =( -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

Hello Eugen, > https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_12&fiddle=95ed9fab6870d7c4b6266ea4d93def13 sorry, forget to update link to the latest example: https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_12&fiddle=8e114ccc9f15a30ca3115cdc6c70d247 -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

FAIL (behavior is not expected) This is inconsistent to allow modify output data for UPDATE and restrict to do this for DELETE Thank you -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

Hello Eugen, Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:05:02 PM, you wrote: > Hello Bruce, > Friday, November 8, 2019, 12:28:18 AM, you wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 04:26:55PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:24:29AM +0200, Eugen Konkov wrote: >&g

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

Hello Bruce, Friday, November 8, 2019, 12:28:18 AM, you wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 04:26:55PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:24:29AM +0200, Eugen Konkov wrote: >> > >> As far as allowing DELETE to modify the trigger row for RETURNING, I

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

cribed at first letter, without > this the RETURNING rows **does not correspond actually deleted data** > Thank you. -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

". Becuase, as I have described at first letter, without this the RETURNING rows **does not correspond actually deleted data** Thank you. -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD

lt is: ( 7, '[2019-01-01,2020-01-01)', 130 ) You can see that this is original data. So, does INSTEAD OF DELETE support modification of row? -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Proposition to use '==' as synonym for 'IS NOT DISTINCT FROM'

which will be internally converted( I suppose ) to OPERATOR( someplace.=, x, y, magic ) -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Proposition to use '==' as synonym for 'IS NOT DISTINCT FROM'

Hi. I have noticed that it would be cool to use '==' in place of 'IS NOT DISTICT FROM' What do you think about this crazy idea? -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: Request for improvement: Allow to push (t.o).id via GROUP BY ocd.o

er_id --<< this takes 11500ms -- AND next_ots.consumed_period @> (ots.o).billed_to WHERE ots.order_id IN ( 6154, 10805 ) id is not pushed for LEFT JOIN I have attached plans: -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov plans Description: Binary data

Re: Request for improvement: Allow to push (t.o).id via GROUP BY ocd.o

This takes 2ms > -- WHERE (t.o).id = 6154 AND t.consumed_period @> > '2019-04-01'::timestamptz -- This takes 2700ms > More info is here: https://stackoverflow.com/q/57003113/4632019 -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Request for improvement: Allow to push (t.o).id via GROUP BY ocd.o

med_period @> '2019-04-01'::timestamptz -- This takes 2ms -- WHERE (t.o).id = 6154 AND t.consumed_period @> '2019-04-01'::timestamptz -- This takes 2700ms More info is here: https://stackoverflow.com/q/57003113/4632019 -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: BUG #15646: Inconsistent behavior for current_setting/set_config

s applied to session: tucha=> select current_setting( 'my.app_period', true ); current_setting -- [-infinity,infinity) (1 row) -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov

Re: BUG #15646: Inconsistent behavior for current_setting/set_config

and missed that this function has no effect because there is no transaction in progress -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov