From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Delete/Replace Bug in Functions?
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:50:23 -0700
Message-ID: <200210211550.23473.josh@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9894.1035240251@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200210211531.19436.josh@agliodbs.com>
<9894.1035240251@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom,
> > INSERT INTO order_spec ( job_type, order_usq, no_needed, start_time,
> > end_time, pay_rate, bill_rate )
> > VALUES ( current_type, new_usq, numbers[spec_loop], sttimes[spec_loop],
> > endtimes[spec_loop],
> > pays[spec_loop], bills[spec_loop] );
>
> Um, might v_usq be different from new_usq?
No, actually; there's a declaration earlier that assigns them the same value
for existing records. Plus "new_usq" is the link to the orders record, so
if they were different I wouldn't ever see the extra records.
I just tried to set up a test case for this issue, based on much simpler
schema. Unfortunately, the bug is not reproduceable in this simple case.
Any suggestions on how to reproduce it without dumping you an enitre copy of
my *confidential* database design?
--
-Josh Berkus
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Delete/Replace Bug in Functions?
In-Reply-To: <200210211550.23473.josh@agliodbs.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox