From: | Paul Lambert <paul(dot)lambert(at)reynolds(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Function result using execute |
Date: | 2007-12-12 06:30:06 |
Message-ID: | 475F7FEE.2060305@reynolds.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Do you really need an EXECUTE? If so, maybe you could restructure this
> using a FOR ... IN EXECUTE, or some such thing.
I'll always only ever have a single result since the function gets
passes all the fields making up the primary key of the table, so doing a
for in seems like it's doing more work than is needed.
I need an execute because I'm dynamically constructing an SQL statement
based on the parameters passed into the function - unless there is some
other way of doing it that I'm not aware of.
>
>> therefore I just be using a test of IF curr_amount IS NOT NULL?
>
> Well, that might work. Have you thought through the corner case
> where the query does find a row but the field's value is null?
>
The field in question is marked not null in the tables schema, so unless
PG lets things get past this constraing I don't believe that would be an
issue.
Having the test at is not null seems to be doing the job.
Thanks.
--
Paul Lambert
Database Administrator
AutoLedgers - A Reynolds & Reynolds Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | A. Kretschmer | 2007-12-12 06:31:42 | Re: Query design assistance - getting daily totals |
Previous Message | Erik Jones | 2007-12-12 06:25:10 | Re: Function result using execute |