| From: | James Robinson <jlrobins(at)socialserve(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: subselect on nonexistent column succeeds!!?! |
| Date: | 2004-07-01 19:42:45 |
| Message-ID: | D358DF8C-CB96-11D8-8888-000A9566A412@socialserve.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Aha. Well, you learn something new every day. Yes, the behavior is
indeed like "contact_id is not null", which was true for all rows in
users, which explains why I lost all my data in realtycompany_contacts.
Thank goodness for backups. Many thanks!
James
On Jul 1, 2004, at 3:35 PM, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> AFAIK the spec requires that subselects like that can reference outer
> columns so contact_id inside the subselect refers to the outer
> contact_id
> column which does exist (which makes the effective behavior of the
> above
> clause the same as contact_id is not null I think)
>
----
James Robinson
Socialserve.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2004-07-01 19:42:57 | Re: Possible bug? |
| Previous Message | Roberto João Lopes Garcia | 2004-07-01 19:42:29 | string concatenator || and NULL values |