Re: UNION DISTINCT in doc

Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> UNION DISTINCT is nothing more than UNION itself, but gram.y
> definitely accept it and the SQL standard describes it as well. Should
> we add DISTINCT to docs?

I think it'd be hard to describe without confusing people, because
while DISTINCT is a noise word there, it's definitely not a noise
word after SELECT. And the way that the reference pages are laid
out, it's hard to connect different descriptions of the same
keyword to different usages. If you can think of a non-forced
way of describing this, fine. But I don't have a problem with
leaving it as an undocumented standards-compliance nit.

regards, tom lane