[select version() --> PostgreSQL 7.2 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC 3.0.4]
I'm getting hangups every day or so, I presume due to some open transaction
that insert/update/delete'ed on a table that is used by my main app without
a commit.
Is there some way (in 7.2!) to find who's locking wha
Hi,
I have query " SELECT id_user FROM user WHERE (freg_u & 2 ) > 0 ".
freg_u is type smallint.
Query return this error.
PostgreSQL query failed: ERROR: Unable to identify an operator '&' for
types 'smallint' and 'integer' You will have to retype this query using
an explicit cast in
How I
Thanks very much, this helps immensely. I've worked with functions before,
but never aggregates. I guess there's some more bedtime reading for me to
look into now.
Re: sorting, this is not important to me, but I will keep the issues brought
up by Tom Lane in mind when I use this.
On Saturday
I need to enumerate the constraints on any given column in a table, so
I'm examining pg_constraint to get the relevant information. The
conkey array contains a list of constrained columns, and although I am
able to check conkey[1] for constraints on a single column, I would
like to properly handle
At 10:59 AM 6/6/03, Damien Dougan wrote:
I was wondering if it is possible to create a table view based on a table
which is effectively an "attribute list".
For example, suppose I have two tables:
CREATE TABLE user
(
userid integer,
username character varying,
userpassword character varying,
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 18:02, A.M. wrote:
>> I have 560 columns of NUMERIC(10,14). To not run up against max column=20
>> restraints, I split the information into two tables. Does the column=20
>> limit on tables imply the same limit for views or selects or c
I've got three tables, I'll shorten the columns down just so you get the
idea:
lists
---
id|order_id
list_results
id|lid|total
orders
id|max
All of the columns are int's. What I'm trying to do is something like:
select (o.max-coalesce(sum(lr.total),0)) from o
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Eivind Kvedalen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > SELECT a, concat(b) FROM (SELECT a,b FROM test ORDER BY a,b) T GROUP BY a;
>
> > The ORDER BY is included to sort the rows before they are aggregated. I'm
> > not sure that this guarantees that they actually will
From: "Mr Weinbach, Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But at execution time I am getting thi error :
>
> WARNING: Error occurred while executing PL/pgSQL
> function word_case
> WARNING: line 5 at return next
> ERROR: Set-valued function called in context that
> cannot accept a set
>
> I also tried
Eivind Kvedalen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok. What I actually had in mind was whether the optimizer would remove the
> ORDER BY clause completely or not,
No. If you put an ORDER BY in a subselect, I think the system should
honor it.
regards, tom lane
"A.M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have 560 columns of NUMERIC(10,14). To not run up against max column
> restraints, I split the information into two tables. Does the column
> limit on tables imply the same limit for views or selects or could I
> potentially select a row across both table
Eivind Kvedalen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SELECT a, concat(b) FROM (SELECT a,b FROM test ORDER BY a,b) T GROUP BY a;
> The ORDER BY is included to sort the rows before they are aggregated. I'm
> not sure that this guarantees that they actually will be sorted, but maybe
> some of the postgresql
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 18:02, A.M. wrote:
> I have 560 columns of NUMERIC(10,14). To not run up against max column
> restraints, I split the information into two tables. Does the column
> limit on tables imply the same limit for views or selects or could I
> potentially select a row across both t
13 matches
Mail list logo
