Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Delete/Replace Bug in Functions?
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:50:23 -0700
References: <200210211531.19436.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<9894.1035240251@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <9894.1035240251@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200210211550.23473.josh@agliodbs.com>

Tom,

> > 		INSERT INTO order_spec ( job_type, order_usq, no_needed, start_time,=
=20
> > end_time, pay_rate, bill_rate )
> > 		VALUES ( current_type, new_usq, numbers[spec_loop], sttimes[spec_loop=
],=20
> > endtimes[spec_loop],
> > 			pays[spec_loop], bills[spec_loop] );
>=20
> Um, might v_usq be different from new_usq?

No, actually; there's a declaration earlier that assigns them the same valu=
e=20
for existing records.   Plus "new_usq" is the link to the orders record, so=
=20
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=20
schema.   Unfortunately, the bug is not reproduceable in this simple case.=
=20=20
Any suggestions on how to reproduce it without dumping you an enitre copy o=
f=20
my *confidential* database design?

--=20
-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