From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UNION with more than 2 branches |
Date: | 2007-04-24 18:23:00 |
Message-ID: | 877is18we3.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-04-24 18:23:12 | Re: UNION with more than 2 branches |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-24 18:19:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update |