I wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
>> How about just erroring out?
> Hm, yeah, inserting a FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED error might be an
> appropriate amount of effort.
When I looked into this more closely, it turns out that in v10/HEAD
it takes less code to fix it than to throw an error ;-). So
Ken Tanzer writes:
> I noticed I get this behavior in 9.6, but in 9.2 an empty select results in
> a syntax error. Which just got me curious what caused the change, if it
> was deliberate, and if one or the other is more proper behavior.
Yes, it was an intentional change, see
https://git.postgre
I noticed I get this behavior in 9.6, but in 9.2 an empty select results in
a syntax error. Which just got me curious what caused the change, if it
was deliberate, and if one or the other is more proper behavior.
Cheers,
Ken
--
AGENCY Software
A Free Software data system
By and for non-profits
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2017, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So yeah, it's wrong ... but personally I'm not terribly excited
>> about fixing it. Maybe somebody else wants to; but what's the
>> practical use?
> How about just erroring out?
Hm, yeah, inserting a FEATURE_NOT_S
On Thursday, December 21, 2017, Tom Lane wrote:
> which would only be the right plan for UNION ALL.
>
> So yeah, it's wrong ... but personally I'm not terribly excited
> about fixing it. Maybe somebody else wants to; but what's the
> practical use?
>
How about just erroring out?
David J.
Victor Yegorov writes:
> However, if I'll do `EXCPET` or `INTERSECT` of such queries, I'll get 2
> rows:
> postgres=# select except select;
> --
> (2 rows)
> postgres=# select intersect all select;
> --
> (2 rows)
> Why is it so?
The UNION case seems wrong as well:
regr
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Victor Yegorov wrote:
>
> Also, intersection should not return more rows, than there're in the
> sub-relations.
>
>
Doh!, I think I got UNION into my mind somewhere in that...
David J.
2017-12-22 2:03 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston :
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Victor Yegorov
> wrote:
>
>> postgres=# select except select;
>> --
>> (2 rows)
>> postgres=# select intersect all select;
>> --
>> (2 rows)
>>
>> Why is it so?
>> Should this be reported as a
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Victor Yegorov wrote:
> postgres=# select except select;
> --
> (2 rows)
> postgres=# select intersect all select;
> --
> (2 rows)
>
> Why is it so?
> Should this be reported as a bug?.. ;)
>
The intersection case seems correct - one row
Greetings.
One can issue an empty `SELECT` statement and 1 row without columns will be
returned:
postgres=# select;
--
(1 row)
However, if I'll do `EXCPET` or `INTERSECT` of such queries, I'll get 2
rows:
postgres=# select except select;
--
(2 rows)
postgres=# select
10 matches
Mail list logo
