John, > Yeah, I figured out my SQL was bad and had switched to the comma > separated version, instead. In my mind, the first form should have > caused an error. I've attached a cut-and-pasted session from psql where > I used this syntax on a test table. While edited for brevity and to > obscure passwords, this is how the output appeared.
Here's your problem: accounting=# update all_user set usr_current = True AND usr_location = 1002; UPDATE 3 PostgreSQL interpreted the expression "True AND usr_location = 1002" as a single, unitary, boolean expression. AND is the boolean AND operator. Since none of the users on your list had "usr_location = 1002", you got: user_current = (True AND (usr_location = 1002)) user_current = (True AND False) user_current = False Since all 3 rows already had false, they did not appear to get updated, but in fact they were. Time to look up your order of operations! -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
