Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 19:48 schrieb Tom Lane:
> 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.
It's probably safer to leave it as is.
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 diffe
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Maybe we should just ignore those qualms and do it anyway --- I must
>> admit that I'm hard-pressed to come up with a situation where anyone
>> would really want different datatypes used in the inner union than
>>
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe we should just ignore those qualms and do it anyway --- I must
> admit that I'm hard-pressed to come up with a situation where anyone
> would really want different datatypes used in the inner union than
> the outer.
Does it even matter except in the
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The resolution to my problem with the select_common_type() error message
> turned out to be that this doesn't work:
> postgres=# select null union select null union select 1;
> ERROR: UNION types text and integer cannot be matched
Yeah, this has be
