On 18 Jun 2001 17:42:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Smith <x@xman.org> writes:
> Um ... surely that should be "if count > 0" ? Or was that just a
> transcription error?
>
> This approach certainly ought to work as desired given the exclusive
> lock, so a silly typo seems like a plausible explanation...
Sorry, it is indeed a transcription error (sadly). The actual line in
question looks like this in Java:
boolean answer = resultSetCount.getInt(1) > 0;
I accidently transcribed the field offset instead of the comparison
constant.... probably should split that up into two lines of code to
avoid confusion like this...
--Chris
