> -Original Message-
> From: Mikheev, Vadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > > It is intuitive. The bug was iirc, that you saw 2 versions
> > > of the same row in the second select statement (= 2 rows
> > > returned by second select).
> >
> > I think we should be extremely wary of assum
> > It is intuitive. The bug was iirc, that you saw 2 versions
> > of the same row in the second select statement (= 2 rows
> > returned by second select).
>
> I think we should be extremely wary of assuming that we have a clear
> characterization of "what the bug is", let alone "how to fix it".
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is intuitive. The bug was iirc, that you saw 2 versions of the same row
> in the second select statement (= 2 rows returned by second select).
I think we should be extremely wary of assuming that we have a clear
characterization of "what th
