| From: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kobi Biton <kobi(at)comns(dot)co(dot)il> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: *****SPAM***** Re: if-clause to an exiting statement |
| Date: | 2010-12-07 17:44:07 |
| Message-ID: | 28AACBE0-0644-43B4-9D85-2DA118707ED8@elevated-dev.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Kobi Biton wrote:
>
> I know it does not sound logic however I do need to set the row count
> to 1 in case row count returns 0
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: you can't do that. The only thing you can do is make sure your query returns a row, and in the case where it currently doesn't return a row I have absolutely no idea what it would be that you would need to return.
If it would be acceptable to always return some hard-wired dummy row in addition to the 0 or more rows that match the current query, then you could use a UNION to add the dummy row to the selection. Otherwise, perhaps the real problem is that you do not have a matching event in the database and the real solution is to add such an event.
In your original post you referred to an application bug where a trigger does not run if the row count is 0. It's hard for me to imagine how it's a bug to not take action when there is no event that needs processing...
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com
http://www.elevated-dev.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-12-07 18:01:03 | Re: restore In parallel postgres 9 |
| Previous Message | Steve Clark | 2010-12-07 17:42:27 | Re: dotted quad netmask conversion |