I would like to create a view that shows a full list of active and inactive tasks. Is there a way to do that?
Context: I'm making some automatic reporting that alerts us on failed tasks or inactive tasks.
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW "DB"."PUBLIC"."SNOWFLAKE_TASK_LIST" COPY GRANTS AS
SHOW tasks IN "DEV"."PUBLIC";
Gives me the error: unexpected 'SHOW'
I have no tasks, but give I suspect this a SHOW thing verse a task thing, I will substitute USERS:
use role accountadmin;
show users;
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW "DB"."PUBLIC"."SNOWFLAKE_USERS_LIST" AS
SHOW users;
it would seem that SHOWs are not SELECTs. which makes sense, when given they are different, they give results that appear like table base results, but a number of setup functions are not true tables in the sense they are in Postgres.
This can further be seen in the fact
select * from (
show users
);
gives the error
SQL compilation error: Object 'SHOW' does not exist or not authorized.
and yet
SHOW users;
select * from table(result_scan(-1));
works.
But maybe the TASK_HISTORY table info table has your needed details, OR maybe the show command does work inside a stored procedure, thus you can asses the result_scan(-1) to capture the details.
Related
one of our users is getting an error (only occasionally) on a view that has autorefresh on. the name of the table is vwdeviceplatform. Is it because the view is being autofreshed at the time they are running the query? Any way to avoid that? We don't want to schedule manual refreshes.
Invalid operation. Relation "mv_tbl_vwdeviceplatform_0" does not exist.
User is using dbeaver
I am using Oracle Business Intellgience (12c) and let's say I have a report resulted from an execution of the following query
select code_filial, max(paid) as maximum_pay
from leads_history
group by code_filial
It will return a table with highest budget value related to the each filial. Now what i want is the following: when i click to max(paid) result in a table, another table should appear with the information about max(paid) account. I tried master-detail relationship, but couldn't succeed.
Can anyoune help with that?
That's out-of-the-box functionality. As soon as you make a navigation action link to another analysis where your code_filial is set to "is prompted" the context will be passed and the analysis filtered.
we are currently digging into Amazon Redshift and testing different functionalities.
One of our basic requirements is that we will define different user groups which in turn will be granted access to different views.
One way to go about this would be to implement one view seperately for each user-group. However, since we have a lot of user-groups that share almost the exact same need for information, I'm looking for a way to implement this more dynamically in Redshift.
For instance, let's say I have a user group called users_london and another one called users_berlin. Both will have access to a view called v_employee_master_data which contains the columns employee_name, employee_job_title and employee_city.
Both groups share the same scope of information with one exception - the column employee_city.
In essence, the view should be pre-filtered for a certain value in the column employee_city according to the currently logged-in user-group.
In SQL - something like this:
For the usergroup users_london:
SELECT * FROM v_employee_master_data WHERE employee_city = 'London';
For the usergroup users_berlin:
SELECT * FROM v_employee_master_data WHERE employee_city = 'Berlin';
Now to make the connection back to Amazon Redshift. Does the underlying DB runtime provide an out-of-the-box functionality to somehow catch the currently logged user-group as a form of global variable and alter the SQL-statement according to the value of that variable?
It is possible to do:
get current user
select current_user
find what group it belongs to
select groname from pg_group where current_user_id = any(grolist);
Extract city and capitalize it:
select initcap(substring(groname from 'users_(.*)')) from pg_group where current_user_id = any(grolist);
Now you have your city based on the "user". So just inject it in the view
... WHERE employee_city = initcap(substring(groname from 'users_(.*)') ...
I have two tables in APEX that are linked by their primary key. One table (APEX_MAIN) holds the basic metadata of a document in our system and the other (APEX_DATES) holds important dates related to that document's processing.
For my team I have created a contrl panel where they can interact with all of this data. The issue is that right now they alter the information in APEX_MAIN on a page then they alter APEX_DATES on another. I would really like to be able to have these forms on the same page and submit updates to their respective tables & rows with a single submit button. I have set this up currently using two different regions on the same page but I am getting errors both with the initial fetching of the rows (Which ever row is fetched 2nd seems to work but then the page items in the form that was fetched 1st are empty?) and with submitting (It give some error about information in the DB having been altered since the update request was sent). Can anyone help me?
It is a limitation of the built-in Apex forms that you can only have one automated row fetch process per page, unfortunately. You can have more than one form region per page, but you have to code all the fetch and submit processing yourself if you do (not that difficult really, but you need to take care of optimistic locking etc. yourself too).
Splitting one table's form over several regions is perfectly possible, even using the built-in form functionality, because the region itself is just a layout object, it has no functionality associated with it.
Building forms manually is quite straight-forward but a bit more work.
Items
These should have the source set to "Static Text" rather than database column.
Buttons
You will need button like Create, Apply Changes, Delete that submit the page. These need unique request values so that you know which table is being processed, e.g. CREATE_EMP. You can make the buttons display conditionally, e.g. Create only when PK item is null.
Row Fetch Process
This will be a simple PL/SQL process like:
select ename, job, sal
into :p1_ename, :p1_job, :p1_sal
from emp
where empno = :p1_empno;
It will need to be conditional so that it only fires on entry to the form and not after every page load - otherwise if there are validation errors any edits will be lost. This can be controlled by a hidden item that is initially null but set to a non-null value on page load. Only fetch the row if the hidden item is null.
Submit Process(es)
You could have 3 separate processes for insert, update, delete associated with the buttons, or a single process that looks at the :request value to see what needs doing. Either way the processes will contain simple DML like:
insert into emp (empno, ename, job, sal)
values (:p1_empno, :p1_ename, :p1_job, :p1_sal);
Optimistic Locking
I omitted this above for simplicity, but one thing the built-in forms do for you is handle "optimistic locking" to prevent 2 users updating the same record simultaneously, with one's update overwriting the other's. There are various methods you can use to do this. A common one is to use OWA_OPT_LOCK.CHECKSUM to compare the record as it was when selected with as it is at the point of committing the update.
In fetch process:
select ename, job, sal, owa_opt_lock.checksum('SCOTT','EMP',ROWID)
into :p1_ename, :p1_job, :p1_sal, :p1_checksum
from emp
where empno = :p1_empno;
In submit process for update:
update emp
set job = :p1_job, sal = :p1_sal
where empno = :p1_empno
and owa_opt_lock.checksum('SCOTT','EMP',ROWID) = :p1_checksum;
if sql%rowcount = 0 then
-- handle fact that update failed e.g. raise_application_error
end if;
Another, easier solution for the fetching part is creating a view with all the feilds that you need.
The weak point is it that you later need to alter the "submit" code to insert to the tables that are the source for the view data
Ok, I have a question relating to an issue I've previously had. I know how to fix it, but we are having problems trying to reproduce the error.
We have a series of procedures that create records based on other records. The records are linked to the primary record by way of a link_id. In a procedure that grabs this link_id, the query is
select #p_link_id = id --of the parent
from table
where thingy_id = (blah)
Now, there are multiple rows in the table for the activity. Some can be cancelled. The code I have doesn't disinclude cancelled rows in the select statement, so if there are previously cancelled rows, those ids will appear in the select. There is always going to be one 'open' record that is selected if I disinclude cancelled rows. (append where status != 'C')
This solves this issue. However, I need to be able to reproduce the issue in our development environment.
I've gone through a process where I've entered a whole heap of data, opening, cancelling, etc to try and get this select statement to return an invalid id. However, whenever I run the select, the ids are in order (sequence generated), but in the case where this error occured, the select statement returned what seems to be the first value into the variable.
For example.
ID Status
1 Cancelled
2 Cancelled
3 Cancelled
4 Open
Given the above, if I do a select for the ID I want, I want to get '4'. In the error, the result is 1. However, even if I enter in 10 cancelled records, I still get the last one in the select.
In oracle, I know that if you select into a variable and more than one record is returned, you get an error (I think). Sybase apparently can assign multiple values into a variable without erroring.
I'm thinking that there's either something to do with how the data is selected from the table, where the id's without a sort order don't return in ascending order, or there's a dboption where a select into a variable will save the first or last value queried.
Edit: it looks like we can reproduce this error by rolling back stored procedure changes. However, the procs don't go anywhere near this link_id column. Is it possible that changes to the database architecture could break an index or something?
If more than one row is returned, the value that is stored will be the last value in the list, according to this.
If you haven't specified an order for retrieval via ORDER BY, then the order returned will be at the convenience of the database engine. It may very well vary by the database instance. It may be in the order created, or even appear "random" because of where the data is placed within the database block structure.
The moral of the story:
Always make singleton SELECTs return a single row
When #1 can't be done, use an ORDER BY to make sure the one you care about comes last