Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design
Date
Msg-id CAHyXU0x=mKS2q6t5XzR+v8+OAmx5gEWM+tH_Vj1JJnhSBdqH6Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design  (Surafel Temsgen <surafel3000@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Surafel Temsgen <surafel3000@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am new here and I really want to contribute, I have read same resource
> that help understanding database system and postgresql. I would like to
> start implementing sql syntax corresponding by clause because I believe
> implementing sql syntax gives an opportunity to familiarize  many part of
> postgresql source code. Previous implementation is here and have an issue on
> explain query and break cases on unlabeled NULLs
> To repeat what a corresponding by clause means
> Corresponding clause either contains a BY(...) clause or not. If it
> doesn't have a BY(...) clause the usage is as follows.

This is great stuff. Does the syntax only apply to UNION?  I would
imagine it would also apply to INTERSECT/EXCEPT?  What about UNION
ALL?

merlin



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Karl O. Pinc"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix an assertion failurerelated to an exclusive backup.