Quoth Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sebastian Tennant wrote:
>> Quoth Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Sebastian Tennant wrote:
>> >
>> >> P.S. Emacs users of PostgreSQL might like to know that there's a
>> >> texinfo version of the manual (version 8.3.3) available for
>> >>
Sebastian Tennant wrote:
> Quoth Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Sebastian Tennant wrote:
> >
> >> P.S. Emacs users of PostgreSQL might like to know that there's a
> >> texinfo version of the manual (version 8.3.3) available for
> >> download from here:
> >>
> >> http:
Quoth Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sebastian Tennant wrote:
>
>> P.S. Emacs users of PostgreSQL might like to know that there's a
>> texinfo version of the manual (version 8.3.3) available for
>> download from here:
>>
>> http://www.emacswiki.org/PostGreSQL
>
> Hmm, w
Sebastian Tennant wrote:
> P.S. Emacs users of PostgreSQL might like to know that there's a
> texinfo version of the manual (version 8.3.3) available for
> download from here:
>
> http://www.emacswiki.org/PostGreSQL
Hmm, we did have a patch to add a texinfo target to the doc
Quoth Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sebastian Tennant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I sometimes think this kind of gotcha is purposely buried, or not
>> addressed at all, in order to force users to read the manual.
>
> Where exactly do you think we should document it, if not in the
> manual?
I
Quoth "Richard Broersma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Sebastian Tennant
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IF (NEW. != OLD.) THEN ...
>>>
>>> IF( NEW.* IS DISTINCT FROM OLD.* ) THEN ...
>>>
>> I sometimes think this kind of gotcha is purposely buried, or not
>> addressed a
Sebastian Tennant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I sometimes think this kind of gotcha is purposely buried, or not
> addressed at all, in order to force users to read the manual.
Where exactly do you think we should document it, if not in the manual?
In any case it's SQL-standard behavior that any
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Sebastian Tennant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> IF (NEW. != OLD.) THEN ...
>>
>> IF( NEW.* IS DISTINCT FROM OLD.* ) THEN ...
>
> I sometimes think this kind of gotcha is purposely buried, or not
> addressed at all, in order to force users to read the manual.
I wou
Quoth "Richard Broersma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Sebastian Tennant
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IF (NEW. != OLD.) THEN ...
>
> The != operator doesn't work the way you might think when nulls are
> thrown into the mix. I asked a similar question a while back an
Quoth Adrian Klaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Monday 01 December 2008 7:18:51 am Sebastian Tennant wrote:
>> I had thought that OLD holds the record as it was before the update,
>> and that NEW holds the record as it is since the update (but before
>> the update has been committed)?
'42.10 Trigger
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Sebastian Tennant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IF (NEW. != OLD.) THEN ...
The != operator doesn't work the way you might think when nulls are
thrown into the mix. I asked a similar question a while back and was
kindly pointed to the following syntax:
IF( NEW.*
On Monday 01 December 2008 7:18:51 am Sebastian Tennant wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> First steps in trigger functions and PL/pgSQL so please bear with me...
>
> How can one detect changes to certain fields in before update trigger
> functions?
>
> IF (NEW. != OLD.) THEN ...
>
> doesn't work, so obviously
Hi list,
First steps in trigger functions and PL/pgSQL so please bear with me...
How can one detect changes to certain fields in before update trigger
functions?
IF (NEW. != OLD.) THEN ...
doesn't work, so obviously my understanding of the values of the
varriables NEW and OLD in before update
13 matches
Mail list logo
