Applied. Thanks.
Okay, here's my attempt at fixing the problems with parentheses in
subqueries. It passes the normal 'runcheck' tests, and I've tried
a few simple things like
select 1 as foo union (select 2) order by foo;
There are a few things that it doesn't do that have
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Err, with Tom's objections, why was this applied?
was going to ask this too ... someone going patch-happy again? :)
* Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001028 11:34]:
Applied. Thanks.
Okay, here's my attempt at fixing the problems with
Larry Rosenman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Err, with Tom's objections, why was this applied?
* Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001028 11:34]:
Applied. Thanks.
Itchy trigger finger today, Bruce?
Please revert the change --- I'm still discussing it with Kevin offlist,
but I don't
Okay, here's my attempt at fixing the problems with parentheses in
subqueries. It passes the normal 'runcheck' tests, and I've tried
a few simple things like
select 1 as foo union (select 2) order by foo;
There are a few things that it doesn't do that have been talked
about here at
"Kevin O'Gorman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) It does NOT preserve the odd syntax I found when I started looking
at this, where a SELECT statement could begin with parentheses. Thus,
(SELECT a from foo) order by a;
fails.
Um, as a general rule that's not an acceptable limitation.
