On Jan 2, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Eoghan Murray wrote:
> > But the inner UNION doesn't work (postgres at least), as it seems to > compute the union based on column position, rather than column label. this is correct, unions work based on column position. > > At the moment I'm replacing the outer SELECT with a SELECT * which > gives the intended results. interesting workaround, i can see how that would work. I've made fixes to corresponding_column() to resolve this issue, and in the process uncovered (and also solved) a whole class of problems in that method which was, to my great surprise, also impacting some very nested Query objects that *don't* use union() or anything compound. This change is in trunk r5578. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
