| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Harald Fuchs <hf0923x(at)protecting(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 8.1 substring bug? |
| Date: | 2005-11-13 19:13:35 |
| Message-ID: | 22671.1131909215@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
>> In this particular case the syntax makes it unclear that the substring
>> is the problem. Perhaps here the solution would be to put a cast in the
>> grammer, like so:
> ...
> But I think we could do this in substr_list in the case where we have
> just "a_expr substr_for", because there are no variants of that where
> the FOR expression is supposed to be string.
I've applied this patch as far back as 8.0. Not sure whether there's
a need to back-patch further.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-11-13 21:07:41 | Re: MERGE vs REPLACE |
| Previous Message | Kris Jurka | 2005-11-13 19:02:22 | Re: prepareThreshold=1 and statement.executeBatch() ?? |