Re: Weirdness with =?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Weirdness with =?
Date: 2006-01-30 15:00:20
Message-ID: 5128.1138633220@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I tried replacing it with:
> UPDATE food_foods SET included=(verification_status = 'I');
> However, that set included to true only where verification_status=I, it
> didn't set false at all.

You'd have gotten NULL, not FALSE, at the rows where verification_status
is NULL.

You could try coalesce, or "(verification_status = 'I') IS TRUE", to
get something that returns false instead of null.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-01-30 15:02:32 Re: GRANT/REVOKE: Allow column-level privileges
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2006-01-30 14:40:44 Re: stats for failed transactions (was Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM