On 4 June 2011 21:40, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2011-06-04 at 14:36 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> The docs reference an example "above" which doesn't exist:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpython-data.html#AEN52431
>>
>> It says that it would return the wrong answer for nu
On lör, 2011-06-04 at 14:36 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> The docs reference an example "above" which doesn't exist:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpython-data.html#AEN52431
>
> It says that it would return the wrong answer for null inputs, but
> then gives an example where it hand
On lör, 2011-06-04 at 18:52 +0200, Marc Cousin wrote:
> Hi, I've found another problem in ECPG's doc:
>
>
> ECPG_INFORMIX_DATE_CONVERT
>
>
> Functions return this value if Internally it is defined to -1210
> (the
> Informix definition).
>
>
On lör, 2011-06-04 at 03:10 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2011/06/03 18:16, Marc Cousin wrote:
> > Hi, we're translating the ecpg.xml from scratch in french, as it seems
> > to have moved a lot with 9.0 and 9.1.
> >
> > I'm having trouble with this:
> >
> > 3948desc_next
> > 3949
> > 39
On 06/03/2011 08:30 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>
>> I think it should be rewritten as following:
>> -
>> If the query returns more than one records, multiple linked
>> SQLDA structures are returned, and desc_next
>
Hi,
The docs reference an example "above" which doesn't exist:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpython-data.html#AEN52431
It says that it would return the wrong answer for null inputs, but
then gives an example where it handles that. Is something missing
here?
--
Thom Brown
Twit
