Re: Error with union in sub-selects
От | Christof Petig |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Error with union in sub-selects |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 83DC79A8.1A0AB07D@wtal.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Error with union in sub-selects (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Martin Neimeier wrote: > Hello, > some additional informations: > > - if i execute the subselect alone, it works fine !. > - The same select statement works with sybase and oracle, so i think its a legal statement. > - After reading in the sql2-standard, i have found nothing which restricts unions in sub-selects. > Create a temp table (I did it this way): instead of select x from table where x in (select A union select B); create temp table t1 (x type_of_x; ); insert into t1 select A union select B; select x from table where exists (select t1.x from t1 where t1.x=table.x); Using exists instead of in circumvents another restriction of PostgreSQL. Tom Lane said, these bugs would be addressed during the query tree reorganization (7.2, in 2001) > > (I don't want to use another rdbms ... i want to use PostgreSQL :-))))) > > If somebody has a workaround, then i am the happiest person for the day. Could be ... if you can live with this ... Christof
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: