Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEE0475D70 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1296C475B85 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g9O3S2hR008630; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:28:02 -0400 (EDT) To: Stephan Szabo Cc: patrick , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: sub-select trouble: wrong SQL or PostgreSQL issue? In-reply-to: <20021023195621.F13686-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com> References: <20021023195621.F13686-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com> Comments: In-reply-to Stephan Szabo message dated "Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:59:09 -0700" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:28:01 -0400 Message-ID: <8629.1035430081@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200210/319 X-Sequence-Number: 10036 >> Is it possible that the sub-selects are somehow >> affecting the result sets? > 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. I think this may be the same problem as bug #526, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2001-11/msg00168.php If so, the fix is in 7.2.*. regards, tom lane