X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C7B52808 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:59:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47718-09 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:59:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027CC52B79 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:59:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j6FDxR5C010972; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:59:27 -0400 (EDT) To: Luca Pireddu Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: problem (bug?) with "in (subquery)" In-reply-to: <200507140134.21133.luca@cs.ualberta.ca> References: <200507140134.21133.luca@cs.ualberta.ca> Comments: In-reply-to Luca Pireddu message dated "Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:34:21 -0600" Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:59:27 -0400 Message-ID: <10971.1121435967@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/141 X-Sequence-Number: 22119 Luca Pireddu writes: > So, am I wrong in expecting each strain record to appear only once in the > result set? Or is there something wrong with PostgreSQL? Could we see a self-contained example (table definitions and sample data as a SQL script)? I don't really have time to reverse-engineer a test case from your description ... regards, tom lane