try replace
orderby=t2.name|t3.name
with
orderby=t2.name+t3.name
On Jan 22, 12:31 pm, Carlos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a special case where one table (t1) has 0:1 relationships with two
> other semi-identical tabes (t1.linkt2 to t2 table, t1.linkt3 to t3 table),
> and I need to generate a list
Hi Massimo,
I just tried "+" instead of "|" for orderby, but I get the following error:
ProgrammingError: operator does not exist: character varying + character
varying
HINT: No operator matches the given name and argument type(s). You
might need to add explicit type casts.
I'm using po
Looks like postgresql uses || instead of | for string concatenation. I
just pushed a change in trunk that should make this work
orderby=t2.name+t3.name
Please give it a try and let me know.
On Jan 22, 3:12 pm, Carlos wrote:
> Hi Massimo,
>
> I just tried "+" instead of "|" for orderby, but I g
It now accepts that operator (without errors), but it's not ordering the
rows correctly.
Any ideas?, thanks.
I think there is problem with orderby here too...
I have a field that contain those data :
f1
row1 : 172
row2 : 1212
Then
db.table2.fied1table2.requires = IS_IN_DB(db,
'table.f1','%(f1)s',orderby=('f1'))
I never get the proper order of table1 rows...
1212, 172 in my dropbox instead of 172, 12
Forget about that my mistakes... I should use field proper type (integer)...
Richard
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Richard Vézina wrote:
> I think there is problem with orderby here too...
>
> I have a field that contain those data :
>
> f1
> row1 : 172
> row2 : 1212
>
> Then
>
> db.table2.f
6 matches
Mail list logo
