I know that on my mailing lists the software I use to make web archives would pick up the reply as a reply even if you
changedall of the headers information that you can see. Also on my lists I force the reply to only go to the list..
andnot the user.. I'm not sure why they do both here.. but trust me.. the information you get is worth a couple of
duplicatemessages.
Travis
-----Original Message-----
From: Luis H. [mailto:pgsql-novice@geekhouse.no-ip.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:57 AM
To: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] ORDER BY question
Thanks for the info! Group by should do the trick.
Why does replying to an unrelated message create an issue, btw? I changed
the subject, headers and contents of the e-mail. Or at least I thought I
did!
Also, why do people reply to both the message sender and the mailing list?
Doesn't it just arrive duplicated in the sender's mailbox.
Cheers,
- Luis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Wolff III" <bruno@wolff.to>
To: "Luis H." <pgsql-novice@geekhouse.no-ip.com>
Cc: <pgsql-novice@postgresql.org>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] ORDER BY question
> Please don't start new topics by by replying to unrelated messages.
>
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 21:44:12 -0400,
> "Luis H." <pgsql-novice@geekhouse.no-ip.com> wrote:
> > I have two tables, table A contains users (id, username, password) , and
> > table B contains a row that signifies the 'owner' of each particular
entry,
> > referencing an id in A.
> >
> > What I want to do is do a query where I order table B by owner, but
> > alphabetically by username. The problem, obviously, is that table B only
> > contains id's (numbers, indexing to A), which don't correspond to the
> > alphabetical order of the usernames.
>
> You should do a join on A and B and then you can order the output by
> fields in both A and B.
>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
