Erik Huelsmann <ehu...@gmail.com> writes: >> > @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ WHERE wc_id = ?1 AND local_relpath = ?2; >> > update nodes set translated_size = ?3, last_mod_time = ?4 >> > where wc_id = ?1 and local_relpath = ?2 >> > and op_depth = (select op_depth from nodes >> > - where wc_id = ?1 and local_relpath = ?2 >> > + where wc_id = ?1 and local_relpath = ?2 and op_depth > >> 0 >> > order by op_depth desc >> > limit 1); >> >> This one does not. The rest of the statements you converted all use >> the "in" variant. >> > > The "in" variant is probably better, because - especially with the op_depth >> 0 restriction - the result set can probably be empty.
Hmm. I switched them all to "=", should they be switched back to "in"? What would the effect of an empty result set be? Would it match a null op_depth (prohibited by the schema)? -- Philip
