Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Better error message for select_common_type()

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Better error message for select_common_type()
Date: 2007-04-24 00:11:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> For the VALUES case, the suggestion of "row" and "column" terminology
> seems the right thing, but for UNION it would be better to use "branch"
> perhaps ("row" certainly seems misleading).  How can we make that work
> without indulging in untranslatable keyword-insertion?

Hm, I guess the SQL spec terminology in both cases would be "table

  Gregory Stark

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Koichi SuzukiDate: 2007-04-24 01:15:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2007-04-24 00:09:27
Subject: Re: Fragmentation project

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group