Ralph Smith writes:
> Yeah your right Alban, that looks bad, but it was an artifact of
> 'try-this, try-this, no, try-this'.
>
> The table is empty, and unfortunately remains that way; nothing gets
> inserted.
> I tried other variations, however FOUND just isn't behaving as I would
> think.
(Ple
Yeah your right Alban, that looks bad, but it was an artifact of
'try-this, try-this, no, try-this'.
The table is empty, and unfortunately remains that way; nothing gets
inserted.
I tried other variations, however FOUND just isn't behaving as I would
think.
--
Yeah your right Alban, that looks bad, but it was an artifact of
'try-this, try-this, no, try-this'.
The table is empty, and unfortunately remains that way; nothing gets
inserted.
I tried other variations, however FOUND just isn't behaving as I would
think.
---
On 11/08/2010 09:11 PM, Ralph Smith wrote:
> How is "COLLEEN" not there and there at the same time?
> -
> NOTICE: did not = 11K = 42
> CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "get_word" line 37 at perform
> NOTIC
On 9 Nov 2010, at 5:11, Ralph Smith wrote:
> How is "COLLEEN" not there and there at the same time?
Not really sure what your point is (don't have time to look closely), but...
> IF LENGTH(Word)>0 THEN
> Word2=substring(Word from 1 for 50) ;
> -- PERFORM SELECT COUNT(*) FROM z
How is "COLLEEN" not there and there at the same time?
-
NOTICE: did not = 11K = 42
CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "get_word" line 37 at perform
NOTICE: value = COLLEEN
CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "get_w
