Thread: Recursive unions

Hi guys,

What was the result of the recursive unions thread?  I remember Tom maybe
saying that the Redhat guys like the DB2 (SQL99) syntax the best, however
was it said that that was going to be done by Redhat for 7.4?

Chris

"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> What was the result of the recursive unions thread?  I remember Tom maybe
> saying that the Redhat guys like the DB2 (SQL99) syntax the best, however
> was it said that that was going to be done by Redhat for 7.4?

It'll be looked at; whether it will be done in time for 7.4 is anyone's guess.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane kirjutas K, 29.01.2003 kell 17:58:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> > What was the result of the recursive unions thread?  I remember Tom maybe
> > saying that the Redhat guys like the DB2 (SQL99) syntax the best, however
> > was it said that that was going to be done by Redhat for 7.4?
> 
> It'll be looked at; whether it will be done in time for 7.4 is anyone's guess.

Is anyone actually working on it ?

I had some work on it done in this direction for 7.2.x (yacc patches up
to parse tree generation).

If nobody is currently doing it, I would start pushing it by bringing my
work to 7.4 and then doing small amounts of work and then bugging the
list about what would be the best ways to continue, repeating it until
it is done ;)

-- 
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>

Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> writes:
> Tom Lane kirjutas K, 29.01.2003 kell 17:58:
>> It'll be looked at; whether it will be done in time for 7.4 is anyone's guess.

> Is anyone actually working on it ?

I don't think any significant work has been done yet.  If you wanted to
update your existing patches to CVS tip, that would be helpful I'm sure.
        regards, tom lane