| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UNION DISTINCT in doc |
| Date: | 2010-10-14 17:11:39 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinDJOcjj=O4_NwiRQgdS=T81v9abmj5u7XQ5cVn@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I found PostgreSQL accepts UNION DISTINCT but documents don't mention it.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-select.html#SQL-UNION
>
> select_statement UNION [ ALL ] select_statement
>
> UNION DISTINCT is nothing more than UNION itself, but gram.y
> definitely accept it and the SQL standard describes it as well. Should
> we add DISTINCT to docs?
+1, with due regard for the issue raised by Tom.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-10-14 17:18:26 | Re: A small update for postgresql.conf.sample |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-14 17:10:57 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS |