On 7/2/25 07:26, Durumdara wrote:
Sorry.
I forgot to mention that I have two arrays (records).
One for the modifiable elements, and one for the checkable elements.
If there is a conflict between the actual mod. item and one of the
checkable items, the checkable item will move to the end of the
Sorry.
I forgot to mention that I have two arrays (records).
One for the modifiable elements, and one for the checkable elements.
If there is a conflict between the actual mod. item and one of the
checkable items, the checkable item will move to the end of the
modification list.
And the actual mo
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 8:21 AM Durumdara wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have to store some fetched records into two lists (arrays) to work with
> them.
>
There's almost certainly a way to do what you need done without using
arrays. Might require a bit of rethinking, though.
--
Death to , and butter sa
On Wednesday, July 2, 2025, Durumdara wrote:
>
>
> Is there any way to avoid this? To use a "simple untyped record" in an
> array without "dependencies"?
>
Use jsonb
David J.
Hello!
I have to store some fetched records into two lists (arrays) to work with
them.
I can use the RECORD type in a FOR SELECT loop to get one row data.
declare
f record;
begin
for f in select title, length
But if I tried to define an "array of record", I got an error message.
declare
