I apologize if this is sent twice.
The simplest solution would be to use a view over the data hiding the
mess of the case statement so that ad-hoc users' queries would still work.
- Bill
Bob Smith, Hammett & Edison, Inc. wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 18:55:18 Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Smith, Hammett & Edison, Inc.) writes:
> Here is the problem I'm trying to solve, perhaps someone can help.
> For an invoicing system database, I have a table that defines
> employees. Each has a begin and end date defining the employment
> period. For current employees, t
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 18:55:18 Tom Lane wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Smith, Hammett & Edison, Inc.) writes:
>> On a related note, does anyone know if 'current' works with DATE?
>
>DATE does not have an internal representation of 'current', so the DATE
>input parser treats it the same as 'now'.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 04:24:33PM -0800,
> "Bob Smith, Hammett & Edison, Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > See example below of using NULL values with type DATE. It behaves
> > strangely in expressions, "(x <> null)" gives an entirely differen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Smith, Hammett & Edison, Inc.) writes:
> On a related note, does anyone know if 'current' works with DATE?
DATE does not have an internal representation of 'current', so the DATE
input parser treats it the same as 'now'. AFAIR only timestamp (nee
datetime) has that concept
I think that this page will explain it all:
http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?functions-comparison.html
|On 011220 17:05
|Bob Smith, Hammett & Edison, Inc. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote the following...
|
|See example below of using NULL values with type DATE. It behaves
|strangely in expres
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 04:24:33PM -0800,
"Bob Smith, Hammett & Edison, Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See example below of using NULL values with type DATE. It behaves
> strangely in expressions, "(x <> null)" gives an entirely different
> result than "not(x = null)". Is this intended beh