[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] gmClinical.sql and general comments

From: Karsten Hilbert
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] gmClinical.sql and general comments
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:10:25 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 12:51:10PM +1100, Richard wrote:

> is there a reason comments can't be kept with tables.
The reason is the same - static vs dynamic. I don't
personally like the split either, yes. However, it's a small
nuisance since any db visualisation tool worth mentioning
reunites both and be it the HTML rendering available from
the Wiki. You can have both your cake and eat it, too, in
this particular case.

> > Very strange. I tend to think pgAdmin is not sophisticated
> > enough. The above is perfectly valid SQL and it bootstraps
> > just fine. You might have to contact the pgAdmin people.
> This is interesting Karsten, I'll do some more research on it. The problem 
> lies after  the check part of the query. I've found that some statements 
> containing 'check' compile without problems, yet others don't - perhaps there 
> is something in the text after it.
I'd be very interested in the results. It might help to
identify what sort of parameter input DataManager asks for.

GPG key ID E4071346 @
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]