Re: union all bug?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: union all bug?
Date: 2006-06-18 16:58:09
Message-ID: 8621.1150649889@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Probably this explains the ERROR for the last query... The ORDER BY
> and LIMIT clauses are expected to end a query (except for subqueries,
> of course), and hence the keyword UNION is not expected after the
> LIMIT clause...

Yeah. In theory that's unambiguous, but IIRC we couldn't persuade
bison of the fact, so you have to add parens.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2006-06-18 17:20:34 Re: Rethinking stats communication mechanisms
Previous Message Gurjeet Singh 2006-06-18 16:43:13 Re: union all bug?