Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This came up because some of my Salesforce colleagues were griping about > the fact that UNION isn't commutative. They argue that the type > resolution behavior ought not be sensitive at all to the ordering of the > inputs. I'm not sure we can achieve that in general, but the current > approach certainly seems more order-sensitive than it oughta be. > > Some trolling in the git history says that the last actual change in > this area was in my commit b26dfb95222fddd25322bdddf3a5a58d3392d8b1 of > 2002-09-18, though it appears the documentation has been rewritten more > recently. It's a bit scary to be proposing to change behavior that's > been stable for eleven years, but ... > > Thoughts?
The current behavior is bad enough to merit changing it. Not for back-patch, of course. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
