paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm having trouble understanding the behavior of rules with regards to
> default values.
> ...
> If I remove the REFERENCES constraint, then I can see why. The insert
> made into main behaves as expected; it gets nextval('main_id_seq'),
> which comes out to
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 07:47:00PM -0600, paul cannon wrote:
> Until then, I'll have to make a function to do nextval('main_id_seq')
> with every insert, and have the primary key be INTEGER.
Nevermind- that doesn't work either! Here's the new sample code:
-- Begin demo SQL
CREATE SEQUENCE main_i
'Sup list-
I'm having trouble understanding the behavior of rules with regards to
default values.
Here's my situation: I have a table with a column referencing another.
When inserts are made to the second, I would like a certain
corresponding insert made to the first. Here's the simplest case I c
Treating NaN's as larger(or smaller) than all ordinary values seems a fine way
to go.
It avoids the situation where you request MIN and get an ordinary value which
is greater than the minimum ordinary value in the table. If MIN(or MAX given
the ordering you're suggesting) returns NaN, the user
Robert,
> I'm starting to believe this is not possible, has anyone already done
> it? :-)
It sounds doable but you need more explicit examples; I can't quite tell what
you're trying to do.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
You'll need to pass the values down to your
concat function (which I suggest you don't call concat)
and have it return a text type.
What exactly is your problem? I must be missing something.
elein
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 06:31:52PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> given
>
> create table t1 (f,f1,
given
create table t1 (f,f1,f2,f3);
create table t2 (f,f4,f5,f6);
i'm trying to create a function concat() that does something like:
select f,concat() as info from t1;
which returns a result set equivalent to:
select f,('f1:' || f1 || '- f2:' || f2 || '- f3:' || f3) as x from t1;
or
select f,
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, my 2 cents is that though we consider NULL when ordering via ORDER
> > BY, we ignore it in MAX because it really isn't a value, and NaN seems
> > to be similar to NULL.
>
> Good idea, but I don't think we can get away with it.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, my 2 cents is that though we consider NULL when ordering via ORDER
> BY, we ignore it in MAX because it really isn't a value, and NaN seems
> to be similar to NULL.
Good idea, but I don't think we can get away with it. The spec says
that MAX/MIN h
Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Well, my 2 cents is that though we consider NULL when ordering via ORDER
> > BY, we ignore it in MAX because it really isn't a value, and NaN seems
> > to be similar to NULL.
> >
> > When doing ORDER BY, we have to put the N
Hey! here is a (stupid maybe) idea. Why not disallow 'NaN' for a float?
JLL
Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Well, my 2 cents is that though we consider NULL when ordering via ORDER
> > BY, we ignore it in MAX because it really isn't a value, and NaN
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, my 2 cents is that though we consider NULL when ordering via ORDER
> BY, we ignore it in MAX because it really isn't a value, and NaN seems
> to be similar to NULL.
>
> When doing ORDER BY, we have to put the NULL value somewhere, so we put
> it a
I'm trying to explain the bigger function a bit although it's only
called in 2% of the cases.
В Втр, 22.07.2003, в 19:07, Markus Bertheau пишет:
> CREATE FUNCTION iGetNumOfBookedRes(integer, timestamp, timestamp) RETURNS numeric AS
> '
> SELECT
> CASE WHEN (MAX(kumulierte) IS NULL) THEN 0 E
Hi,
we have this large query about which we want to know if it can be made
faster. The query is:
select * from (
select
ressourcen.*, gebaeude.bezeichnung as
"gebaeude.bezeichnung", gebaeude.gebaeude_id as "gebaeude.gebaeude_id",
gebaeude.kurzbezeichnung as "gebaeude.kurzbezeichnu
Well, my 2 cents is that though we consider NULL when ordering via ORDER
BY, we ignore it in MAX because it really isn't a value, and NaN seems
to be similar to NULL.
When doing ORDER BY, we have to put the NULL value somewhere, so we put
it at the end, but with aggregates, we aren't required to
Thanks Joe..
--
On 21 Jul 2003 at 22:09, Joe Conway wrote:
> Cristian Cappo A. wrote:
> > Tried, but...
> > >> select (foo(10::int2,20::int2))[1];
> > >> ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "[" at character 32
> >
> > I'm using the version 7.3.3
>
> Sorry, it works on 7.4devel, so I
Girish Bajaj writes:
> In pgplsql, Im looking for something like a function that I can use to
> make the process to wait for 20 secs before continuing to execute the
> next sql statment?
There is no built-in support for that, but you could write your own
function in C that accomplishes that, for
>
> Pseudo code:
>
> begin trans
> select * from table1
> WAIT FOR 20 SECS
> update table1 set blah = 'blah'
> end transcation
>
> In pgplsql, Im looking for something like a function that I can use to
make the process to wait for 20 secs before con
tinuing to execute the next sql statment?
>
AFAIK
Pseudo code:
begin trans
select * from table1
WAIT FOR 20 SECS
update table1 set blah = 'blah'
end transcation
In pgplsql, Im looking for something like a function that I can use to make the
process to wait for 20 secs before continuing to execute the next sql statment?
Thanks,
Girish
-
19 matches
Mail list logo
