| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "George Pavlov" <gpavlov(at)mynewplace(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, delux256-postgresql(at)yahoo(dot)com, "PostgreSQL GENERAL List" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about a query with two count fields |
| Date: | 2007-09-11 18:28:24 |
| Message-ID: | 15682.1189535304@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"George Pavlov" <gpavlov(at)mynewplace(dot)com> writes:
>> From: David Fetter [mailto:david(at)fetter(dot)org]
>> This case statement returns true when z factorial is zero, so I'd
>> recommend the SQL standard <> or IS NOT DISTINCT FROM instead.
> i do hate potential ambiguity... the != was something stuck in my brain
> from old sybase, i think. i always liked != ("not equals") as more
> intuitive than <> ("less than, greater than"???), but i will have to
> change my ways, especially if "the standard" says so.
The notion that != might be scanned as two operators whereas <> would
not be is nonsense. I assume David was just joking.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-09-11 18:42:13 | Re: Question about a query with two count fields |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2007-09-11 18:17:34 | Re: Sthange things happen: SkyTools pgbouncer is NOT a balancer |