Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301854769E6
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:59:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megazone.bigpanda.com (megazone.bigpanda.com [63.150.15.178])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3424769C9
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:59:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by megazone.bigpanda.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 84AC8D60D; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by megazone.bigpanda.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 764FB5C02; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
To: patrick <patrick+pgsql@boxsoft.com>
Cc: <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: sub-select trouble: wrong SQL or PostgreSQL issue?
In-Reply-To: <20021023194414.B3699@3eye.boxsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20021023195621.F13686-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200210/318
X-Sequence-Number: 10035


> Strangely, this is the result we were expecting from our
> original query!
>
> Is it possible that the sub-selects are somehow
> affecting the result sets?
>
>
> Seen on:
> % postmaster --version
> postmaster (PostgreSQL) 7.1.3
>
> and
>
> % postmaster --version
> postmaster (PostgreSQL) 7.1.2

I think you want to upgrade, 7.3beta at least gives your
expected output on all the queries when I tried it.  I don't
currently have a 7.2.* system to test on here to try it
with that series.