Re: Postgres 10 problem with UNION ALL of null value in "subselect" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: Postgres 10 problem with UNION ALL of null value in "subselect"
Date
Msg-id CAFjFpRf6Q0B9m2qqsQjw9vTyh8r2S=FG2SUb360Mg3CbxQ1ciA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Postgres 10 problem with UNION ALL of null value in "subselect"  (Martin Swiech <martin.swiech@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Postgres 10 problem with UNION ALL of null value in "subselect"  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Martin Swiech <martin.swiech@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I got some complex query which works on PostgreSQL 9.6 , but fails on
> PostgreSQL 10.
>
> Version of PostgreSQL:
> PostgreSQL 10.3 on x86_64-apple-darwin14.5.0, compiled by Apple LLVM version
> 7.0.0 (clang-700.1.76), 64-bit
>
> Simplified core of the problematic query looks like this:
> ```
> select * from (
>    select 1::integer as a
> ) t1
> union all
> select * from (
>    select null as a
> ) t2;
> ```
>
> It fails with this error message:
> ```
> ERROR:  UNION types integer and text cannot be matched
> LINE 5: select * from (
>                ^
> SQL state: 42804
> Character: 66
> ```
>

The error disappears if we go one commit before
1e7c4bb0049732ece651d993d03bb6772e5d281a, the error disappears. But
that's I think expected with that commit.

We can work around this problem by casting null to integer like null::integer.


-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ildus Kurbangaliev
Date:
Subject: Re: Prefix operator for text and spgist support
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: very slow queries when max_parallel_workers_per_gather is higherthan zero