On 10/20/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Dawid Kuroczko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What troubles me here is that surprise factor is unusally high here.
> > While I understand mechanics why IN (1) works while IN (1,2) does not,
> > I think random developers are going to be confused.
"Dawid Kuroczko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What troubles me here is that surprise factor is unusally high here.
> While I understand mechanics why IN (1) works while IN (1,2) does not,
> I think random developers are going to be confused.
If you're not testing against 8.3 then this argument do
On 10/19/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Note that neither SELECT will work on 8.3, because we no longer have an
> > implicit cast from integer to text. I suppose the above is an oversight
> > in how we handle IN-clauses (starting with
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that neither SELECT will work on 8.3, because we no longer have an
> implicit cast from integer to text. I suppose the above is an oversight
> in how we handle IN-clauses (starting with 8.2 an IN-clause is
> transformed into an "x = ANY (...)"
Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> Versions 8.0, 8.1 work fine, while version 8.2.5 (and earlier probably too):
>
> postgres=> CREATE TEMP TABLE test (id varchar(32));
> CREATE TABLE
> postgres=> INSERT INTO test SELECT * FROM generate_series(1,100);
> INSERT 0 100
> postgres=> SELECT * FROM test WHERE id IN
Versions 8.0, 8.1 work fine, while version 8.2.5 (and earlier probably too):
postgres=> CREATE TEMP TABLE test (id varchar(32));
CREATE TABLE
postgres=> INSERT INTO test SELECT * FROM generate_series(1,100);
INSERT 0 100
postgres=> SELECT * FROM test WHERE id IN (50);
id
50
(1 row)
postgre
