Re: UNION with more than 2 branches
| От | Gregory Stark |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: UNION with more than 2 branches |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 877is18we3.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: UNION with more than 2 branches (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > >> Does it even matter except in the case of nulls? I mean, if the inner pair >> uses integer and then the outer pair uses bigint it'll still work correctly, >> no? > > Oh, it absolutely matters: you can get different answers. Consider > > (select '1' union select ' 1') union all select 1; Ah. >> What would happen if the inner pair defaulted null to "unknown" instead of >> text? > > 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. Ah of course. We wouldn't be able to unionize "unknown" all. hmph. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: