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

Re: Possible Bug in 9.2beta3

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Adam Mackler <AdamMackler(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Possible Bug in 9.2beta3
Date: 2012-08-13 23:02:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Adam Mackler <AdamMackler(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Next, uncomment the final UNION four lines from the end.  When I do
> that I then get a two row result.  I'm not an expert on recursive
> CTEs, but I don't believe a UNION should decrease the number of rows
> returned.

I haven't dug through all of it yet but it's definitely the case that
UNION can reduce the number of rows returned. If there are any
duplicates in one side of the union they'll be eliminated by the

That said your input set doesn't have any duplicates so that shouldn't
be relevant. For some reason I'm getting a syntax error trying to
reproduce your problem but I have an old build of Postgres lying
around so I'm going to update and try again.


In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2012-08-14 00:09:52
Subject: Re: server crash with "process 22821 releasing ProcSignal slot 32, but it contains 0"
Previous:From: Adam MacklerDate: 2012-08-13 18:17:00
Subject: Possible Bug in 9.2beta3

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