TL> It is not "exactly the same arithmetic", because to_timestamp
TL> delivers a result of type timestamp-with-time-zone, whereas your
TL> other values are evidently timestamp without time zone. You did
TL> not say what timezone setting you are using, but I think the
TL> discrepancy
Wojtek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why is the "result" incorrect (off by one day)?
> When I do the exactly same arithmetic using timestamps created
> with to_timestamp, everything is OK ("expected_result").
It is not "exactly the same arithmetic", because to_timestamp
delivers a result of type t
Hi,
I ran this query on Postgres 7.3:
select min_time, max_time, min_time+age(max_time,min_time) as result,
to_timestamp('2003-10-17 23:07:00','-MM-dd HH24:MI:SS')
+age(to_timestamp('2003-12-01 03:50:45','-MM-dd HH24:MI:SS'),
to_timestamp('2003-10-17 23:07:00','-M
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 11:11:31PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Chaney) wrote:
> > Look, you're thinking way too hard on this. An SSN is a 9-digit number,
> > nothing more. There are some 9-digit numbers which aren't valid SSN's,
> > and you
Hi there,
We use oracle at work but I use postgres at home. I also sometimes
develop something in postgres for use at work because I don't really
want to run oracle (9i Lite won't install) on my laptop.
At the moment, I'm hacking a nasty php script which converts a pgdump
file which will work f
I've read through all the example code you've provided thoroughly and
there are definately some useful ideas there. I changed the design of
the document_attribute_values table to only have one field, a text
field, to store the value. As your examples demosntrates, I can simply
cast the text val
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Terence Kearns wrote:
>>
>>> Well I haven't yet done anything because I couldn't get anything to
>>> compile which returned SETOF RECORD..
>
>
>
>> As a starting point, SETOF "RECORD" is different from SETOF RECOR
On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 21:18, Louie Kwan wrote:
> How can I define a table with columns with sysdate as the default value..
>
> If there is no SYSDATE defined in PostgreSQL , what can I do ?
> CREATE TABLE channels(
...
> updateTimeStamp DATE default (SYSDATE),
> createTimeStamp D
Martin Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a table with names of people, email address, etc, and an identifier
> that tells me which group they are in (could be a 1, 2, or 3 person group).
> Is it posible to make a query that would give me the name of the persons of
> each group in one
I have a table with names of people, email address, etc, and an identifier
that tells me which group they are in (could be a 1, 2, or 3 person group).
Is it posible to make a query that would give me the name of the persons of
each group in one row? Or do I have to do PL?
--
19:15:01 up 97 da
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:42:48AM -0800, Steve Crawford wrote:
> I missed the start of this thread but will chime in with a comment
> anyway.
>
> My rule is to select an appropriate numeric type of data if you will
> be doing numeric types of things to it, character types if you will
> be doin
How can I define a table with columns with sysdate as the default value..
If there is no SYSDATE defined in PostgreSQL , what can I do ?
Any help is appreciated.
CREATE TABLE channels(
channelID NUMBER PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR2(64) NOT NULL,
sta
Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Terence Kearns wrote:
Well I haven't yet done anything because I couldn't get anything to
compile which returned SETOF RECORD..
As a starting point, SETOF "RECORD" is different from SETOF RECORD given
PostgreSQL's fold c
On Monday 01 March 2004 8:54 am, Dana Hudes wrote:
> I would represent an SSN as numeric(9,0).
> an int 32 would work though.
> 2**31 is > 9
>
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Chaney)
wrote:
> > > Look, you're thinking wa
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Terence Kearns wrote:
>> Well I haven't yet done anything because I couldn't get anything to
>> compile which returned SETOF RECORD..
> As a starting point, SETOF "RECORD" is different from SETOF RECORD given
> PostgreSQL's fold case
I would represent an SSN as numeric(9,0).
an int 32 would work though.
2**31 is > 9
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Christopher Browne wrote:
> The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Chaney) wrote:
> > Look, you're thinking way too hard on this. An SSN is a 9-digit number,
> > nothing mor
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Terence Kearns wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Terence Kearns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>I tried
> >>RETURNS SETOF RECORD
> >>but that doesn't work
> >
> >
> > Sure it does, if you use it correctly. Better show us what you did.
> >
> >regard
Tom Lane wrote:
> Terence Kearns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>I tried
>>RETURNS SETOF RECORD
>>but that doesn't work
>
>
> Sure it does, if you use it correctly. Better show us what you did.
>
>regards, tom lane
Well I haven't yet done anything because I couldn't get anythin
18 matches
Mail list logo
