Re: [HACKERS] Oops, I seem to have changed UNION's behavior

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Oops, I seem to have changed UNION's behavior
Date: 1999-05-09 15:05:01
Message-ID: 3735A41D.3EE1073D@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > Am I right in thinking that UNION (without ALL) is defined to do a
> > DISTINCT on its result, so that duplicates are removed even if the
> > duplicates both came from the same source table? That's what 6.4.2
> > does, but I do not know if it's strictly kosher according to the SQL
> > spec.

(Just in case this is still active)

Yes, this is the right behavior according to SQL92...

- Thomas

--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitry Samersoff 1999-05-09 15:23:53 Problem installing plpgsql
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-05-09 14:57:16 Re: [HACKERS] Problem with complex query