| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | sagar jadhav <sagarjdhv5(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikhil Ingale <niks(dot)bgm(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: failed to execute the psql case statement which has the function call. |
| Date: | 2022-04-05 14:10:30 |
| Message-ID: | 2358038.1649167830@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> But the error fragment shown suggests that the query shouldn't be expecting
> a column name (contrary to my earlier point), so we are back to having to
> see the entire function definition (or a reproducible example) to provide
> an answer. Spelling typo comes to mind.
I'm wondering if there's an actual function involved at all.
Maybe the OP is just writing this in a psql script and wanting
to substitute a psql variable. In that case something like
:'variable' might be the solution.
Bottom line is the same though: we need to see a lot more context
than we've been shown.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Santiago Deluca | 2022-04-05 14:12:47 | BAJA |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-04-05 13:53:15 | Re: failed to execute the psql case statement which has the function call. |