Re: UNION result
От | Christopher Kings-Lynne |
---|---|
Тема | Re: UNION result |
Дата | |
Msg-id | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOIEAICFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | UNION result (Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Seems fine to me - the second select being cast to the type of the first select. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii > Sent: Wednesday, 15 January 2003 12:04 PM > To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: [HACKERS] UNION result > > > Does anybody know: > > select 1.0 union select 1; > or > select 1 union select 1.0; > > should return 1 or 1.0? > > I see below on my Linux box: > > test=# select 1 union select 1.0; > ?column? > ---------- > 1 > (1 row) > > test=# select 1.0 union select 1; > ?column? > ---------- > 1.0 > (1 row) > > This seems a little bit inconsistent... > -- > Tatsuo Ishii > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: