Re: the IN clause saga

Fernando Nasser wrote:
>> I'm not sure if this makes sense, but could you have a conflict
>> between a set containing a single element that is the array and a
>> set containing the elements of the array.
>
> You will need to have an Array of Arrays in that case.

Sorry for jumping in but it doesn't seem that everyone understands the
new functionality Tom mentioned, so I thought I might elaborate.

The new syntax is:
<scalar> <op> ANY | SOME | ALL (<array-expression>)
or specific to this discussion
<scalar> = ANY (<array-expression>)
*not*
<scalar> IN (<array-expression>)
for exactly the reason above. If the latter were allowed, it would
present a conflict, because
<scalar> IN (<list-of-scalars>)
is allowable. The former is not ambiguous because
<scalar> = ANY (<list-of-scalars>)
is not, and never has been allowed. E.g.:

regression=# select 1 where 1 = any (array[1,2,3]);
?column?
----------
1
(1 row)

regression=# select 1 where 1 = any (1,2,3);
ERROR: syntax error at or near "," at character 26

regression=# select 1 where 1 in (1,2,3);
?column?
----------
1
(1 row)

If everyone already knew this, just say so, and I'll go back to lurking...

HTH,

Joe