On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Christopher Browne wrote:
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to fit with the way WITH is defined
in SQL.
How is the WITH construct defined in SQL?
--
/Dennis
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your
David Fetter kirjutas R, 12.12.2003 kell 20:13:
Kind people,
I'm looking to the SQL WITH clause as a way to get better regex
support in PostgreSQL. I've been chatting a little bit about this,
and here's an idea for a behavior. Implementation details TBD.
WITH res = match (x.foo,
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
David Fetter kirjutas R, 12.12.2003 kell 20:13:
Kind people,
I'm looking to the SQL WITH clause as a way to get better regex
support in PostgreSQL. I've been chatting a little bit about
this, and here's an idea for a
David Fetter kirjutas L, 13.12.2003 kell 23:17:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
David Fetter kirjutas R, 12.12.2003 kell 20:13:
Kind people,
I'm looking to the SQL WITH clause as a way to get better regex
support in PostgreSQL. I've been chatting a
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 18:39:20 -0500,
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/*
* If the user writes both DISTINCT ON and ORDER BY, then the
* two expression lists must match (until one or the other
* runs out). Otherwise the ORDER
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SELECT x.*
FROM x,
(select match (x.foo, '([0-9]+)x([0-9]+)')
from x innerx
where innerx.pk = x.pk
) as res
HAVING y = get_match_group(res, 2)
OR y = get_match_group(res, 3)
;
Well you don't need to go fetch from
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We reject the following query:
nconway=# create table abc (a int, b int, c int);
CREATE TABLE
nconway=# select distinct on (a) a, b, c from abc order by b, c, a;
ERROR: SELECT DISTINCT ON expressions must match initial ORDER BY
expressions
What
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to change all the walkers and mutators to have a more
strict prototype. I had to do this with lots of casts.
I don't really like the idea of having all those generic pointer
types (Node * and void *), but currently see no better way to deal
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you really want:
select distinct on (b,c,a) a,b,c from abc order by b,c,a;
or is that you want
select * from (select distinct on (a) a,b,c order by a) order by
b,c,a;
If I understand you correctly, I don't think I would expect either.
- ORDER BY