Tom Lane wrote:
and unless I'm mistaken, our behavior conforms to the spec and Oracle's
doesn't.
Strictly speaking, the spec doesn't define the behavior of "SUBSTR" at
all, only "SUBSTRING" with this weird FROM/FOR argument syntax. But
PG treats SUBSTR(x,y,z), SUBSTRING(x,y,z) and SUBSTRING(x F
Guy Rouillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does the spec leave implementation of indexes on the substr() function
> less than one undefined?
SQL99 defines the result of
::=
SUBSTRING FROM
[ FOR ]
as
a) Let C be the value of th
Does the spec leave implementation of indexes on the substr() function
less than one undefined? By mistake, I had a substr() invocation with
an initial index of zero (would be nice if all the computer languages of
the world could agree to a single definition.) Oracle silently treats
this the
