On 16 March 2015 at 17:02, Rob Richardson <rdrichard...@rad-con.com> wrote: > Greetings! > > > > An update query is apparently succeeding, even though the query refers to > fields that do not exist. Here’s the query: > > > > update inventory set > > x_coordinate = (select x_coordinate from bases where base = '101'), > > y_coordinate = (select y_coordinate from bases where base = '101') > > where charge = 100 > > > > -- select x_coordinate, y_coordinate from bases where base = '101' > > > > When I run the update query, it tells me that the query succeeded and that > four records were updated, which is what I expect. But when I looked at the > inventory table, I found that the four records were unchanged. So, I tried > to check the values of the base coordinates by running the select statement > shown above. That statement threw an error complaining that x_coordinate > and y_coordinate did not exist. This is correct; I should have been > querying a view that includes those fields. But why didn’t the update > statement throw an error?
Because inventory contains those fields. -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, Cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
