Re: UNION DISTINCT in doc - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: UNION DISTINCT in doc
Date
Msg-id 18507.1287068414@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to UNION DISTINCT in doc  (Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: UNION DISTINCT in doc  (Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Newall
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] rollback to savepoint leads to transaction already in progress
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL command to edit postgresql.conf, with comments