Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Something to maybe add to the TODO list, if someone has the
time/inclination to work on it ...
The problem with the current auth system, as I see it, is that you can't
easily have seperate user lists and passwords per database ... its shared
across the system ...
Something to maybe add to the TODO list, if someone has the
time/inclination to work on it ...
The problem with the current auth system, as I see it, is that you can't
easily have seperate user lists and passwords per database ... its shared
across the system ...
The closest you can get is to
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Jan Wieck wrote:
What would be good is IMHO to have GRANT|REVOKE CONNECT which defaults
to REVOKE, so only superusers and the DB owner can connect, but that the
owner later can change it without the need to edit hba.conf.
Oh, yes. Me too please. I think something close
Try this:
SELECT count(*)
FROM (
SELECT count(*)
FROM test
GROUP BY date_trunc('day', test_date)
) as qry;
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 16:03, Yuva Chandolu wrote:
Hi,
We have a query select count(count(*)) from test group by
trunc(test_date). This works fine
Hi,
We have a query select count(count(*)) from test group by
trunc(test_date). This works fine with Oracle but when moving to postgres I
changed it to select count(count(*)) from test group by date_trunc('day',
test_date) but I get the following error
ERROR: Aggregate function calls may not
On SGI multiprocessor machines, I suspect that a spinlock
implementation of LWLockAcquire would give better performance than
using IPC semaphores. Is there any specific reason that a spinlock
could not be used in this context?
+-++
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 12:55, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This still doesn't allow john on db1 to be a different user than john on
db2. To accomplish that (easily) we still need to install different
instances for
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As an alternative syntax I can suggest
SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
Ugh. Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 10:48:53 -0300,
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something to maybe add to the TODO list, if someone has the
time/inclination to work on it ...
The problem with the current auth system, as I see it, is that you can't
easily have seperate user lists and
Hi guys,
I seem to be getting virus emails that pretend to be one of your guys. eg.
I get them from T.Ishii and N.Conway, etc. Anyone out there on the list who
should perhaps scan their computer? :)
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have
10 matches
Mail list logo
