Okay,
Thanks @ll! It was in fact a char instead a varchar item.
Von: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. März 2015 22:11
An: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: RE: [firebird-support] coalesce
> one short questi
> one short question, why is the Result of
> coalesce(:variableVarchar(10),'NULL') not ,NULL' but rather 'NULL ' with
> blanks from varchar(10) length?
What tool/application are you using to evaluate the result?
As Dmitry and Mark have already pointed out, the result should be a VarChar(10
On 25-3-2015 19:25, Dmitry Yemanov dim...@users.sourceforge.net
[firebird-support] wrote:
> 25.03.2015 19:43, 'checkmail' wrote:
>
>> one short question, why is the Result of
>> coalesce(:variableVarchar(10),‘NULL‘) not ‚NULL‘ but rather ‘NULL ‘
>> with blanks from varchar(10) length?
>
> Bec
25.03.2015 19:43, 'checkmail' wrote:
> one short question, why is the Result of
> coalesce(:variableVarchar(10),‘NULL‘) not ‚NULL‘ but rather ‘NULL ‘
> with blanks from varchar(10) length?
Because the resulting length is determined by the longest argument. It's
fixed at the compile time.
Hi Walter,
On slide 46 of http://www.slideshare.net/ibsurgeon/3-how-transactionswork
we consider how transaction 20 view record versions.
It's important to note that transaction 20 is a snapshot.
>Tx16 did the INSERT?
Yes, it created original version of Record 1.
>Tx12 can do a COMMIT although
Hey everyone,
one short question, why is the Result of
coalesce(:variableVarchar(10),'NULL') not ,NULL' but rather 'NULL '
with blanks from varchar(10) length?
Thank you.
Best regards.
Olaf
Hi Alexey
Yes, that's right, I can not understand well the page 46. I suppose that R1
means "record version 1", R2 means "record version 2", etc.
Tx16 did the INSERT?
Tx12 can do a COMMIT although it had started before Tx16 and Tx18 is still
active?
Tx25 can change what Tx14 did although Tx14 is
25.03.2015 12:20, Tim Ward wrote:
> The fix in 3.0 sounds good! - but it'll be a while for us, we're
> currently looking at upgrading to 2.5.
Instead of going for the -o switch and losing one table completely, I'd
rather use the -n switch. As a result, you have all data but some
constraints are
On 24/03/2015 18:27, Dmitry Yemanov dim...@users.sourceforge.net
[firebird-support] wrote:
24.03.2015 18:42, Tim Ward wrote:
> [#] Yes, well, there's then the question about how come you're allowed
> to get a database into such an illegal state in the first place, isn't
> there.
I'd say this i
Hi Walter,
>I have just one doubt, and it is with page 46.
Do you mean "Record versions visibility"?
Regards,
Alexey
10 matches
Mail list logo
