Hello,Ashutosh
Thank you for your response.
>We already have that infrastructure, IIUC through commit
That's good!
>Can we use that to fix this bug?
I'll try it.
But this is my first hack,I think I need time.
Regards
Kenichiro Tanaka
2020年6月8日(月) 22:11 Ashutosh Bapat :
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 a
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:35 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Kenichiro Tanaka writes:
> > I think table column width of UNION statement should be equal one of UNION
> > ALL.
>
> I don't buy that argument, because there could be type coercions involved,
> so that the result width isn't necessarily equal t
Hello,
Thank you for your quick response and sorry for my late reply.
> (I suppose you're using UTF8 encoding...)
It is right.
As you said, my encoding of database is UTF8.
>There's room for improvement there, but this is all bound up in the legacy
>mess that we have in prepunion.c.
At first,I t
Kenichiro Tanaka writes:
> I think table column width of UNION statement should be equal one of UNION
> ALL.
I don't buy that argument, because there could be type coercions involved,
so that the result width isn't necessarily equal to any one of the inputs.
Having said that, the example you g
Hello hackers
I think I found a bug about estimating width of table column when I
perform SQL with UNION statement.
I think table column width of UNION statement should be equal one of UNION ALL.
But they don't match.This can be reproduce it on HEAD.
See following example.
--CREATE TEST TABLE
