--- Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Chris Gamache wrote:
> >> Understood. PostgreSQL 7.2.3.
>
> > 7.3 will be better for this. There were questions about the safety
> > of pushing clauses down in queries with union and inter
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Chris Gamache wrote:
>> Understood. PostgreSQL 7.2.3.
> 7.3 will be better for this. There were questions about the safety
> of pushing clauses down in queries with union and intersect and
> earlier versions wouldn't push down becaus
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Chris Gamache wrote:
> > If you want help, you must provide details. The PG version number is
> > relevant also.
>
> Understood. PostgreSQL 7.2.3.
7.3 will be better for this. There were questions about the safety
of pushing clauses down in queries with union and intersect
> If you want help, you must provide details. The PG version number is
> relevant also.
Understood. PostgreSQL 7.2.3.
Here's the generated client side sql:
select
case when (hasflag(ut.flags,1) or (current_timestamp - '1 day'::interval <
trl.trans_date)) then
case when trl.trans_data
Chris Gamache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right now I dynamicly generate the SQL for an incredibly ugly 4 table join
> based on user information client-side. I got the bright idea to create a view
> and then run a MUUUCH simpler client-side query on that view. The problem is
> that PostgreSQL app
Right now I dynamicly generate the SQL for an incredibly ugly 4 table join
based on user information client-side. I got the bright idea to create a view
and then run a MUUUCH simpler client-side query on that view. The problem is
that PostgreSQL apparantly runs the view FIRST and then applies the c
