Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #5681: Using set returning function as subrequest can result losing rows in result set

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Maksym Boguk" <Maxim(dot)Boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #5681: Using set returning function as subrequest can result losing rows in result set
Date: 2010-09-28 20:36:21
Message-ID: 28500.1285706181@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
"Maksym Boguk" <Maxim(dot)Boguk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Oops... two rows where function returned zero rows just disappeared. 

Yup, that's expected.  This is one of many reasons why set-returning
functions in the targetlist aren't an especially good idea.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Alexey ParshinDate: 2010-09-28 21:12:40
Subject: Re: BUG #5680: Failure to start: too many private dirs demanded
Previous:From: stagirusDate: 2010-09-28 19:14:58
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Mapping Hibernate boolean to smallint(Postgresql)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group