| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | kogorman(at)pacbell(dot)net, PGSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: syntax |
| Date: | 2000-10-28 20:54:07 |
| Message-ID: | 200010282054.QAA19333@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but are you talking about the
> original grammar or your modified one? Your modified one is erroneous
> because it will always associate successive UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT
> operators left-to-right; this does not meet the SQL spec which insists
> that INTERSECT binds more tightly than the other two. Given that, I'm
> not surprised that the precedences have no effect.
>
> > I don't see precedence in SQL92; set operations
> > seem to be left associative of equal priority.
>
> Better take another look at the <query expression>, <query term>,
> <query primary> hierarchy then...
Is there something here to patch? Hmm, I don't see anything... I will
come back later. :-)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-28 20:57:26 | Re: Proposal for DROP TABLE rollback mechanism |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-10-28 20:52:31 | Numeric file names |