Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING (NULL error) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING (NULL error)
Date
Msg-id 5162.1319746855@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING (NULL error)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING (NULL error)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Kerem Kat <keremkat@gmail.com> writes:
>> Union with NULL error persists without the corresponding patch. Here
>> is the output from postgres without the patch:

>> SELECT a FROM (SELECT 1 a) foo
>> UNION
>> SELECT a FROM (SELECT NULL a) foo2;

>> ERROR:  failed to find conversion function from unknown to integer

> Yeah, this is a longstanding issue that is not simple to fix without
> introducing other unpleasantnesses.  It is not something you should
> try to deal with at the same time as implementing CORRESPONDING.

BTW, just to clarify: although that case fails, the case Erik was
complaining of does work in unmodified Postgres:

regression=# select 1 a   , 2 b
union all           select null a, 4 b ;a | b 
---+---1 | 2  | 4
(2 rows)

and I agree with him that it should still work with CORRESPONDING.
Even though the behavior of unlabeled NULLs is less than perfect,
we definitely don't want to break cases that work now.  I suspect
the failure means that you tried to postpone too much work to plan
time.  You do have to match up the columns honestly at parse time
and do the necessary type coercions on them then.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING (NULL error)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING (NULL error)