it's weirder and weirdest :-)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:17:17AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Pradier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One can access the columns of the main query from the subquery,
> > therefore in my own query the column "id_compte" is found,
Ok, understood.
One can access the columns of the main query from the subquery,
therefore in my own query the column "id_compte" is found,
therefore there is no error message.
Doesn't this count as a bug ?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:24:48PM +, Richard Huxton wrote:
> D
, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:49:28AM +, Richard Huxton wrote:
> David Pradier wrote:
> >But when i put this query inside another query, i don't have anymore the
> >error message :
> >select distinct id_operation from compte where id_compte in
> >(select id_compte from op
Hi everybody,
I've just run into a seemingly strange behaviour of postgresql and I'd like to
know if it's normal or what.
I've got a table "operation" in which there _isn't_ any column
"id_compte".
So when i do :
"select id_compte from operation where not compta_g5;"
I have :
"ERROR: column "id_
> > i compared an integer to an empty string, i ran in an error.
> > Is this a bug or a feature of the new 7.3 version ?
> > Is there a purpose ?
>
> What number do you expect '' to represent?
> Probably you either want to use:
> = '0'
> or
> is null
> depending on what you are really trying to do
Hi!
I'm new on this list, my name is David Pradier, and i'm french.
I'm currently trying the new postgresql 7.3rc1, and i've noticed that if
i compared an integer to an empty string, i ran in an error.
Example :
=# select nom_comm from operation where id_operation = '
