Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> For those following along at home, the failures are on these queries:

> SELECT 1.1 AS two UNION SELECT 2.2;
> SELECT 1.1 AS two UNION SELECT 2;
> SELECT 1 AS two UNION SELECT 2.2;
> SELECT 1.1 AS three UNION SELECT 2 UNION ALL SELECT 2;

> In each case, the expected result is with the values in ascending
> numerical order. In each case, the 1 or 1.1 value which ought to
> appear before 2 or 2.2 instead appears after it. Strictly speaking,
> this is not the wrong answer to the query, and could be perhaps
> explained by the planner choosing a hash aggregate rather than a sort
> + unique plan. But this patch doesn't change the planner at all, so
> the plan should be the same as it has always been.

Yeah. We could add an EXPLAIN to make certain, perhaps, but since
none of the other critters are failing I doubt this explanation.

regards, tom lane