Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Flavio S. Glock wrote:
How about using a "view" to create a "lazy" sql recurrence.
For example:
"FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3,6"
--- postgresql ---
CREATE TABLE YEARS ( N DATE UNIQUE PRIMARY KEY );
insert into years values ( date('1990-01-01') );
insert into years v
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Flavio S. Glock wrote:
How about using a "view" to create a "lazy" sql recurrence.
For example:
"FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3,6"
--- postgresql ---
CREATE TABLE YEARS ( N DATE UNIQUE PRIMARY KEY );
insert into years values ( date('1990-01-01') );
insert into years values ( date('1991-
How about using a "view" to create a "lazy" sql recurrence.
For example:
"FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3,6"
--- postgresql ---
CREATE TABLE YEARS ( N DATE UNIQUE PRIMARY KEY );
insert into years values ( date('1990-01-01') );
insert into years values ( date('1991-01-01') );
insert into years values ( date
--- Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> >
> > On a side note, I don't really like the namespace Sort::Key
> itself, since
> > it's not clear what that means. I'd think something like
> Sort::Datatype
> > or Sort::Custom or
On May 2, 2005, at 18:41 , Tim wrote:
p.s. Since Postgres has been mentioned already I'll mention MySQL :)
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/spatial-extensions-in-mysql.html
PostgreSQL geometric data types:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/datatype-geometric.html
;-)
David
smime.p7s
Des
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:51:46PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, kellan wrote:
>
> >Actually recurrence exceptions are one really good reason why its hard
> >to ever come up with an elegant, purely rule based recurrence
> >representation. For events involving humans its inevita
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>
> On a side note, I don't really like the namespace Sort::Key itself, since
> it's not clear what that means. I'd think something like Sort::Datatype
> or Sort::Custom or something like that might be a little clearer. This is
> so
