Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So now the question is what the ODBC standard says locate() should
> > return.
>
> Wups. I neglected to notice the disconnect between the message subject
> and body... but you are right, "locate" might not be the same as
> "posi
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So now the question is what the ODBC standard says locate() should
> return.
Wups. I neglected to notice the disconnect between the message subject
and body... but you are right, "locate" might not be the same as
"position" :-(
> > While running an ODBC test suite against PostgreSQL 7.1, the test
> > software reported that the ODBC command locate("", "") failed.
> > It expected the result to be zero and it got a 1.
> Evidently your ODBC test suite hasn't read the spec. See 4.2.2.2 in
> either SQL92 or SQL99:
>
> Terry Carlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3
> The lower the number the more severe it is.
>
> Short Description
> position('' in '') returns 1 instead of 0
This is in compliance with the SQL standard. (SQL 1999, clause 6.17,
general rule 2 a), if you care.)
> While run
Terry Carlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> While running an ODBC test suite against PostgreSQL 7.1, the test
> software reported that the ODBC command locate("", "") failed.
> It expected the result to be zero and it got a 1.
Evidently your ODBC test suite hasn't read the spec. See 4.2.2.2 in
ei
Terry Carlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
position('' in '') returns 1 instead of 0
Long Description
While running an ODBC test suite against PostgreSQL 7.1, the test software reported
that the ODBC command
Seems that is not our script, but made by some other organization.
>
> Hi Postgres-people,
> in the linux rc script for (start|stop)ing postgres
> a comment says to add the following lines to the postgres
> users' .bash_profile:
>
> PATH=$PATH:$HOME/bin
> MANPATH=$MANPATH:/opt
