On Friday 19 December 2003 05:33, Keith C. Perry wrote:
> Quoting David Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'm setting up 2 database servers. The first is on our local network
> > which is our staging server. The second is an external server setup at my
> > hosting company. On a nightly bases I want
I belive that I have found a bug - or maybe it was done on purpose. Have
a look at this query:
SELECT integer_field FROM bugtable WHERE (CASE WHEN '' <> '' THEN
integer_field = '' ELSE integer_field = 0 END);
Result: ERROR: invalid input syntax for integer: ""
SELECT text_field FROM bugtable W
This is normaol behavior.
> I belive that I have found a bug - or maybe it was done on purpose. Have
> a look at this query:
>
>
> SELECT integer_field FROM bugtable WHERE (CASE WHEN '' <> '' THEN
> integer_field = '' ELSE integer_field = 0 END);
> Result: ERROR: invalid input syntax for integer:
Alexander Litvinov wrote:
This is normaol behavior.
I belive that I have found a bug - or maybe it was done on purpose. Have
a look at this query:
SELECT integer_field FROM bugtable WHERE (CASE WHEN '' <> '' THEN
integer_field = '' ELSE integer_field = 0 END);
Result: ERROR: invalid input syntax
On Friday 19 December 2003 09:02, Marek Lewczuk wrote:
> Alexander Litvinov wrote:
> > This is normaol behavior.
> >
> >>I belive that I have found a bug - or maybe it was done on purpose. Have
> >>a look at this query:
> >>
> >>
> >>SELECT integer_field FROM bugtable WHERE (CASE WHEN '' <> '' THEN
Richard Huxton wrote:
On Friday 19 December 2003 09:02, Marek Lewczuk wrote:
But until it's evaluated ''<>'' it doesn't know it is false. When building the
CASE expression, it's trying to map types to each elements and notes that ''
is not an int. Only after this stage will it actually try to ev
> Well, I must say that it is wird action... Why to check both elements of
> CASE expression, if we know for sure that only one will be executed ?
Because that's a syntax check, which does NOT evaluate any of the
expressions, only the types of them. Even if it will not be executed
ever, it is sti
Csaba Nagy wrote:
Because that's a syntax check, which does NOT evaluate any of the
expressions, only the types of them. Even if it will not be executed
ever, it is still wrong, and it should generate an error, because it
means a mistake on your side which potentially could leave to results
you did
Thanks for your help
Melanie
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Conway wrote:
D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
I have a simple table that I'd like to query to pull
out a heirarchy from a tree relationship. What is the
best way to do this without a 'CONNECT BY' clause like
Oracle has?
See connectby() in contrib/tablefunc.
Yep. That's what I was looking for.
Marek Lewczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I must say that it is wird action... Why to check both elements of
> CASE expression, if we know for sure that only one will be executed ?
It cannot discover that the WHEN clause is constant-false until after it
has performed syntactic analysis --
> When they did the port, did they also "do the right thing" with foriegn
> keys, stored procs, etc?
No. The pg port was an unofficial thing and appears to be very much in its infancy.
The objective of the individual who wrote it was to "get it working". While I haven't
looked too closely at th
12 matches
Mail list logo
