"Peter Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this demonstrates the problem much better than I could explain in
> words. The bug is shown in the two
> SELECT queries with a WHERE clause. Very bizarre.

I've applied a patch that corrects this problem in CVS HEAD, but since
it changes the behavior of HAVING in a nontrivial way, I'm inclined to
think that we should not backpatch it into existing release branches.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to