Re: [SQL] SQL - update table problem...

2006-11-14 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 11:36:05 +0100, Marko Rihtar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i'm trying to do update on multiple tables but don't know how. > is something like this posible with postgresql? I believe you need to use multiple update statements to do this. Each update can only update one t

Re: [SQL] unexpected EOF within message length word

2006-11-14 Thread Richard Broersma Jr
> I'm having trouble getting the Windows ODBC drivers to work. They used > to work, but it's been 6 months or so. If you don't find the answer you are looking for on this list, maybe try: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Richard Broersma Jr. ---(end of broadcast)--

[SQL] unexpected EOF within message length word

2006-11-14 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
I'm having trouble getting the Windows ODBC drivers to work. They used to work, but it's been 6 months or so. I have both the PostgresSQL ODBC driver 8.00.01.02 and the ODBC+ driver version 1.00.01.00. Both give "Error 101" on the Windows side, and "LOG: unexpected EOF within message length wor

Re: [SQL] Case Preservation disregarding case sensitivity?

2006-11-14 Thread Bruce Momjian
beau hargis wrote: > Having installed DB2 Enterprise today and taking it for a spin, it does > indeed > behave in a similar manner. However, after reading through both > specifications, it seems that DB2 follows more of the spec than PostgreSQL. > The specifications state that for purpose of co

Re: [SQL] hiding column values for specific rows

2006-11-14 Thread Bricklen Anderson
Luca Ferrari wrote: Hi, I don't know if this's possible but I'd like to hide column values for specific rows within a query. Imagine I've got a table with columns username and password: users(username,password). Now I'd like the user registered in the table to see her password, to see who is r

Re: [SQL] Constraint on multicolumn index

2006-11-14 Thread Stuart Brooks
> > But if I want the next item following t=(a=10,b=100,c=1000): > > > select * from T > > where (a=10 AND b=100 AND c>1000) OR (a=10 AND b>100) OR (a>10) > > order by a,b,c; > > The correct way to handle this is to use a SQL-spec row comparison: > > where (a,b,c) > (10,100,1000) > > Unfortunate

Re: [SQL] max (timestamp,timestamp)

2006-11-14 Thread T E Schmitz
Michael Fuhr wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 07:29:09PM +0500, imad wrote: max (timestamptz, timestamptz) does not exist already. You need to create a simple function in PLpgSQL something like if a > b return a; else return b; Since PostgreSQL 8.1 you can use GREATEST: test=> SELECT greates