Adrian, Working from my phone wasn't such a good idea!
When I said 'INSERT' I meant 'WITH'. My excuse is that the 'WITH' statement is building a temporary table ( at least logically ) so there is at least an implicit 'INSERT' there. /s/jr Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 3, 2017, at 23:12, Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> wrote: > >> On 07/03/2017 05:20 PM, Jerry Regan wrote: >> Adrian, >> Thank you for your reply! >> I apologize in advance for not being detailed below. Hard to do from my >> phone. >> I did have to move the 'ORDER BY', but not outside the 'WITH'. My first >> workaround parenthesized the select containing the 'ORDER BY', forcing it to >> be evaluated before the 'INSERT'. That worked. > > Not sure where the INSERT comes into the picture, but glad you got it working. > >> But I never liked using a sequence for the c_id column. And using the >> sequence on my personal workstation was maybe safe, but given that sequences >> not are guaranteed to be without gaps, that was not very portable. > > Yeah, that concerned me also, still I figured one problem at a time. > >> So I searched a bit and found I could use 'row_number()' instead. That >> approach allowed me to use the 'ORDER BY' required by 'row_number()'. >> That worked and is far more portable to other postgresql instances. >> I really do appreciate your response. It is also my nature to continue my >> research even after asking for help. However I find my answer, one validates >> the other. > > Sometimes it just a matter a little push to get out of the rut:) > >> Thanks again! >> /s/jr >> Sent from my iPhone > > > -- > Adrian Klaver > adrian.kla...@aklaver.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
