fenway

I've got 20+ years under my belt that says it has nothing to do with luck. And I'm ok with that.

I disagree. To design something, you need to know how it works, why it works, and when it's going to stop working. To use something, you only need to know a subset of those three things -- and "why" isn't one of them, even the limitations are optional. I don't need to know how a calculator gets its power, or why it's solar vs. battery-operated, in order to use it. I don't need to know what things it can't calculate. I just need to know that "+" means "addition". Sure, knowing these things is a nice bonus, but nothing more. This bonus knowledge has little effect on 5x5.

Because I've taught a great many people a great many things -- not just technological -- and bombarding novice users with abstract notions is just asking for trouble. If you deny this, then you're in an ivory tower.

Your humility aside, you're still pushing your own wares -- if you're proud of your work, there's no reason not to own up to it. Once again, the OP is looking for a solution, not more work to do. They asked for something that *does* support PostgreSQL, and you've offered up something that *might* it -- in theory, if you like -- and hence I don't think that's of much help. They could have just as easily added additional DB support to any existing framework -- so why push that one in particular? I'm baffled. He *can* also building with own DB -- but he's not going to do that, either.

"manufacturing" and "using" do not require the same skill set.

I've heard nothing but horror stories about them.

That is a truly amazing accomplishment -- how did you score a job with the big G?

You've already been warned once for not disclosing that you're advertising your own personal framework -- careful now. Caveat lector. On a more relevant note, are you seriously answering the OP's question for a DB-independent solution by suggestion one that doesn't even support a second DB?

Theory is a useful framework -- a very useful one -- but we need not look to it to solve each and every problem, nor as a pre-requisite to do so. Formalizing truths is all well and good -- but, in your own words, it's purely a formality, nothing more. It's a convenient package -- it makes really nice predictions about the future, is useful for comparing different, untestable outcomes, etc.. There is no need to re-discover these "truths" repeatedly -- sure, somehow had to discover them first, and that's great. But that's already happened. I don't need to recognize them to use them for practical purposes -- I can just figure it out and get it right anyway. It doesn't need to "make sense" at all. What's more, most theories evolved from heretics whose opponents stoned their because their theories didn't "make sense" -- Copernicus, Gallileo, etc. (stoned or stoning-equivalent) -- so just because it doesn't fit into an existing theory, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. Besides, empirical observations are the basis for every theory that exists (well, maybe not those crazy string theories, but theoretical physicists admit that they're making stuff up all of the time). That doesn't detract from the resultant theory, with all of its predictive eye-candy, but it also doesn't detract from the original observations, either.

Yes, theory is one way to approach a problem (e.g. by formalizing it). But you have inherently presupposed that this is somehow required, and it's not. Your supposition that "now" would not even be possible if there was no "in the first" place is flawed, because you're extrapolating. Yes, we needed there to be some "first place" in the past, but that's not necessary to move ahead at every step. If no new theory was advanced for the next 50 years, websites would all still be working, with 10 year old code to boot.

Well, you must have _some_ sort of DB layer already, correct?

Wait a minute - you expect the rest of us to share, but you aren't willing to do so?

In the query browser, or via php?

I can't believe that's actually the problem -- there is little harm in quoting literals.

You're new here -- use code tags, and post the solution, not just "i made it".

Yes, you can change most of those variables per-session -- why do you think otherwise?

If you have root access to the server, simply restart mysql and skip-grants.

Actually, you just confused absolutely everyone reading this topic -- especially the novice user.

mysql_escape_string() is your friend.

Then I think you misunderstand the role of theory.

And with code tags, next time.

You've aliased the same table twice.

I mean, did you actually examine the DB to confirm that the rows have been changed? Sounds simple enough, but it happens.

That's not really an answer -- are you using persistent connections?

But by their very truth, the axioms are self-evident (after the theory exists), and hence can be considered background noise to the actual task at hand.