| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: UNION with more than 2 branches |
| Date: | 2007-04-24 18:23:12 |
| Message-ID: | 200704242023.12877.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 19:48 schrieb Tom Lane:
> You're missing the point, which is that the inner UNION needs to decide
> what its uniqueness semantics are, independently of what might happen to
> its result later. Or that's how I read the spec anyway.
It's probably safer to leave it as is. Maybe there could be a way to make the
error message more understandable ("Where did the 'text' come from?"), but
perhaps the additional detail discussed in the other thread will do that.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2007-04-24 18:40:49 | Re: RETURN QUERY in PL/PgSQL? |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-04-24 18:23:00 | Re: UNION with more than 2 branches |