At 21:21 9/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Sounds perfect to me...
>
>Note that it would not meet your expectation that
This seems OK; the 'update...from' syntax does also seemingly implies that
the rows affected will only be those rows that match the predicate, so your
interpretation is probab
At 14:35 9/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>so the construct is definitely not SQL-compliant. Maybe we should just
>forbid it. However, if you are joining against another table (which
>itself is not an SQL feature) then it seems like there is some potential
>use in it. What do people think of my
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > # SELECT to_number('12,454.8-', '');
> > pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
>
> In current sources I get a NULL result, which seems to be what the
> code author intended originally. However
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> There are at least two bugs here: the immediate cause of the crash
> is lack of a check for heap_openr() failure in the RI trigger code,
Exactly where is that check missing (if it still is)?
> but a larger question is why the system let you drop a table that
> is the targ
