From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALL, ANY bug? |
Date: | 2001-01-08 08:26:47 |
Message-ID: | 13870.978942407@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> You are right. However, SQL92 spec allows:
> select * from t1 where i <> all values(0,1);
No, I still disagree. The ANY/ALL constructs compare a single row on
the left side with all the rows produced by the query on the right.
"values(0,1)" is effectively the same as "SELECT 0,1", ie, it is a
query that happens to produce just one row. The above is illegal in
SQL92 because the lefthand side is not a two-item row.
The semantics you seem to be looking for is "scalar IN/NOT IN list",
which we do have. ANY/ALL is a different animal.
It's true that we don't accept values(...) as a subquery, but that's
only one aspect of this example.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2001-01-08 09:12:56 | Re: ALL, ANY bug? |
Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2001-01-08 07:23:07 | Re: patch: contrib/pgcrypto sanity |