If you don't care about which row you get, how about adding a "LIMIT 1" to your query? Don't know if that counts as "messy" or not... :)
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM, David Salisbury <salisb...@globe.gov>wrote: > > > On 10/14/11 10:58 AM, David Fetter wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 07:49:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> David Salisbury<salisb...@globe.gov> writes: >>> >> > Short version, is there a way to implement an exclusive OR in a where >>>> clause? >>>> >>> >>> The boolean<> operator will do the trick. >>> >>> (x = y)<> (a = b) >>> >>> regards, tom lane >>> >> >> Factoring in NULLable columns, that's: >> >> (x IS NOT DISTINCT FROM y)<> (a IS NOT DISTINCT FROM b) >> >> Cheers, >> David. >> > > Thanks for the replies! > > I should note ( for the mail list archives I guess ) > that the above suggestions don't work. Both rows are > returned whether I use OR or <>, though maybe I'm not > understanding something. I'm not sure why <> would work either, > as all I can find is <> is the same as !=, which is > different than the fabled XOR I was hoping for. In fact > they would never equal. > > But in the end it looks like wrapper sql around my output using > "select distinct.." should do the trick. > > -Dave > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/**mailpref/pgsql-general<http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general> >
