Thread: Reply-To: missing
I could not find on the PostgreSQL web site, who to send this to, so I'll just start here because at least I won't get bounced. There is no Reply-To: line in the messages recieved from this list. So just hitting reply in my mail client will always default To: to the sender of the original message. Consequently, I have to always remember to change the To: back to the list, or always cc: the list and know that the original sender is always getting two messages. Could this be changed? Or is there a good reason that it is, and should stay this way? This is the only list of many that I s-u-bscribe (<- without the dashes, this message bounced!) to that has this annoyance (for me). Anybody else? Cheers! Ken
Does your email client have a 'reply to all' function? That way you'll be replying to the person who wrote the post, and the list. Gregory W Burnham Lead Technologist Excite Simon Fraser University 604 291 3615 (ph) 604 291 5679 (fx) ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken J. Wright <ken@ori-ind.com> To: <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 08:18 AM Subject: [INTERFACES] Reply-To: missing > I could not find on the PostgreSQL web site, who to send this to, so I'll > just start here because at least I won't get bounced. There is no Reply-To: > line in the messages recieved from this list. So just hitting reply in my > mail client will always default To: to the sender of the original message. > Consequently, I have to always remember to change the To: back to the list, > or always cc: the list and know that the original sender is always getting > two messages. Could this be changed? Or is there a good reason that it is, > and should stay this way? This is the only list of many that I s-u-bscribe > (<- without the dashes, this message bounced!) to that has this annoyance > (for me). Anybody else? > > Cheers! > > Ken > >
At 08:58 06/30/1999 -0700, Gregory W Burnham wrote: >Does your email client have a 'reply to all' function? >That way you'll be replying to the person who wrote the >post, and the list. Yes, no problem there. But I'm still sending the original sender 2 copies. One from the list, and one from me. I don't mind, if you don't mind. I'm happy to do in Rome as the Romans do ;-) Ken
Okay, maybe I'm just not finding it in the documentation, but is
there a way to find out the max size of a field? Specifically VARCHAR
fields. For instance if I have a table created with the SQL code:
CREATE TABLE temp_table
( name VARCHAR(30), id VARCHAR(10), address VARCHAR(60));
Now the program I'm writing will add whatever the user wants to
this table, of what ever size. I'm trying to avoid locking the size of
the HTML input fields. So is there anyway to get those numbers back from
Postgres? Right now they're hard-coded in, which really sucks. Thanks.
--Philippe Chaintreuil peep@thefront.com
> >Does your email client have a 'reply to all' function?
> >That way you'll be replying to the person who wrote the
> >post, and the list.
> Yes, no problem there. But I'm still sending the original sender 2 copies.
> One from the list, and one from me. I don't mind, if you don't mind. I'm
> happy to do in Rome as the Romans do ;-)
procmail is your friend, and can filter out duplicate messages.
Especially with occasionally misbehaving mailing lists from various
projects, it makes things much happier for me...
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Philippe Chaintreuil wrote: > Okay, maybe I'm just not finding it in the documentation, but is > there a way to find out the max size of a field? Specifically VARCHAR > fields. For instance if I have a table created with the SQL code: > > CREATE TABLE temp_table > ( name VARCHAR(30), > id VARCHAR(10), > address VARCHAR(60)); > > Now the program I'm writing will add whatever the user wants to > this table, of what ever size. I'm trying to avoid locking the size of > the HTML input fields. So is there anyway to get those numbers back from > Postgres? Right now they're hard-coded in, which really sucks. Thanks. You need to query the system tables to do this. Something like (I've not tested this, just lifting bits from the jdbc source): select a.attname,a.attlen from pg_attribute a,pg_class cwhere c.relname like 'temp_table' and a.attrelid=c.oid anda.attnum>0order by a.attnum; Peter -- Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgresJava PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Peter T Mount wrote:
> > Okay, maybe I'm just not finding it in the documentation, but is
> > there a way to find out the max size of a field? Specifically VARCHAR
> > fields. For instance if I have a table created with the SQL code:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE temp_table
> > ( name VARCHAR(30),
> > id VARCHAR(10),
> > address VARCHAR(60));
> >
> > Now the program I'm writing will add whatever the user wants to
> > this table, of what ever size. I'm trying to avoid locking the size of
> > the HTML input fields. So is there anyway to get those numbers back from
> > Postgres? Right now they're hard-coded in, which really sucks. Thanks.
> You need to query the system tables to do this.
> Something like (I've not tested this, just lifting bits from the jdbc
> source):
>
> select a.attname,a.attlen from pg_attribute a,pg_class c
> where c.relname like 'temp_table'
> and a.attrelid=c.oid
> and a.attnum>0
> order by a.attnum;
Thanks for the idea, but it it isn't able to tell me what the max.
size of varchars are. It returns -1 for them. I think this must be the
method that the libpq++ (PgDatabase).FieldSize(int), as it returns those
same numbers.
I'm pretty sure there's a way to do what I want, as the command
pg_dumpall (from a shell), some how has the numbers that I want.
-- Philippe Chaintreuil peep@thefront.com