--- On Mon, 11/5/07, Hiroshi Inoue <inoue@tpf.co.jp> wrote:
> Using inttobool(int, bool) defined in the above URL, I see
> the
> following.
>
> xxxxx=> select inttobool(NULL, true);
> inttobool
> -----------
> f
> (1 row)
>
> xxxxx=> select inttobool(NULL, false);
> inttobool
> -----------
> f
> (1 row)
>
> Is it what you expected ?
No, I guess I did break Postgres with the inttobool function. :-(
I was expecting a null boolean to return a null and not return a false. I guess my next question would be, how do I go
aboutextracting or fix the inttobool() function in postgres?
Ms-access can't update any of these records that have fields that incorrectly appear to be false when the contents are
actuallyboolean null's, since Access includes these fields in the as part of the update statement's where condition
thatis sent to postgresql. When this happens PostgreSQL notifies MS-access that zero records where updated and the
transactionis rolled back. i.e. update ... where chkfield = '0' -- when chkfield is acutally null.
Thanks for the help!
Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
