All...
One of the groups where I work uses a homegrown C/C++ application that
was written back in 7.3 days which is now running on an 8.4.1 server
(which, until very recently, was running on an 8.1 server).
Unfortunately, they did not use an order by in the query and are now
dealing with a return
Gary Chambers wrote on 21.12.2009 23:15:
The current maintainer is unsure about being able to do the right
thing and recompile the code after fixing the query.
Why not simply add the necessary GROUP BY?
Thomas
--
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Thomas Kellerer spam_ea...@gmx.net wrote:
Gary Chambers wrote on 21.12.2009 23:15:
The current maintainer is unsure about being able to do the right
thing and recompile the code after fixing the query.
Why not simply add the necessary GROUP BY?
Yeah, if
Yeah, if you're code base is that fragile, bandaging it up by jumping
through hoops in pgsql is just putting off the inevitable when it (the
code base) has to get recompiled someday anyway.
I appreciate (and agree with) the concern about the fragility of the
codebase. The maintainer knows
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Gary Chambers gwch...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if you're code base is that fragile, bandaging it up by jumping
through hoops in pgsql is just putting off the inevitable when it (the
code base) has to get recompiled someday anyway.
I appreciate (and agree with)
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Gary Chambers gwch...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if you're code base is that fragile, bandaging it up by jumping
through hoops in pgsql is just putting off the inevitable when it (the
What are the ramifications of renaming the table (containing 8000
rows) and creating a view of the same name?
View does not admit ORDER BY clause, at least, Standard does not.
Sergey
--
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
