On 2022-Aug-12, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Sorry, but I disagree with this chunk in the latest commit,
> specifically, changing the MATCHED from after to before the NOT
> MATCHED clause.
>
> The whole point of the second example was to demonstrate that the
> order of the MATCHED/NOT MATCHED clauses made no difference.
>
> By changing the examples so they are the same, the sentence at line
> 573 now makes no sense.
Hmm, I thought the point of the example was to show that you can replace
the table in the USING clause with a query that retrieves the column;
but you're right, we lost the thing there. Maybe it was too subtle to
the point that I failed to understand it. Perhaps we can put it back
the way it was and explain these two differences (change of data source
*and* clause ordering) more explicitly.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La virtud es el justo medio entre dos defectos" (Aristóteles)
