Added to TODO:
* Make row-wise comparisons work per SQL spec
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-07/msg00218.php
>
> > Still
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-07/msg00218.php
> Still, I think the current behavior is wrong...and is exactly the kind
> of trick question that a sql compliance benchmark might ask.
It undoubtedly is wrong. But it has been wr
> Yes, I found the following thread started by you in the
> pgsql-performance list:
>
> Subject: [PERFORM] best way to fetch next/prev record based on index
> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:18:43 -0700
>
> > there were some concerns about backwards compatibility.
>
> IMO 8.0 is a good chance to fix i
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I remember the thread but didn't see a TODO in there at the time.
* Make row-wise comparisons work per SQL spec
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to in
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > > Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I guess this means that PostgreSQL does not fully support SQL's
> > > > row-wise comparison. We need to add this to the TODO list?
> > >
> > > I thought it was there already ... certainly this has been discussed
> > > befor
> > Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I guess this means that PostgreSQL does not fully support SQL's
> > > row-wise comparison. We need to add this to the TODO list?
> >
> > I thought it was there already ... certainly this has been discussed
> > before ...
>
> This was discussed (i
> Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I guess this means that PostgreSQL does not fully support SQL's
> > row-wise comparison. We need to add this to the TODO list?
>
> I thought it was there already ... certainly this has been discussed
> before ...
This was discussed (including a possi
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess this means that PostgreSQL does not fully support SQL's
> row-wise comparison. We need to add this to the TODO list?
I thought it was there already ... certainly this has been discussed
before ...
regards, tom lane
--
Following result seems strange since it is not what the standard
expects:
test=# select (1,1) > (0,10);
?column?
--
f
(1 row)
On the other hand I see following in the doc:
-
9.17.5. Row-wise Comparison
(expression [, expression ...]) operator (
