Is this still true?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq-english.html#4.23 Is this a leftover
from previous versions of postgres or is this still true for 7.0?

Still true in 7.0.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Bruce Momjian wrote:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq-english.html#4.23 Is this a leftover
from previous versions of postgres or is this still true for 7.0?

Still true in 7.0.

Gee. Shouldn't 4.24 use the advice above in 4.23?

I.E., shouldn't it read:

SELECT tab1.col1, tab2.col2
FROM tab1, tab2
WHERE tab1.col1 = tab2.col1
UNION ALL
SELECT tab1.col1, NULL
FROM tab1
WHERE tab1.col1 NOT EXISTS
(SELECT tab2.col1 FROM tab2 WHERE tab1.col1 = tab2.col1)
ORDER BY tab1.col1

Mike Mascari

Bruce Momjian wrote:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq-english.html#4.23 Is this a leftover
from previous versions of postgres or is this still true for 7.0?

Still true in 7.0.

Gee. Shouldn't 4.24 use the advice above in 4.23?

I.E., shouldn't it read:

SELECT tab1.col1, tab2.col2
FROM tab1, tab2
WHERE tab1.col1 = tab2.col1
UNION ALL
SELECT tab1.col1, NULL
FROM tab1
WHERE tab1.col1 NOT EXISTS
(SELECT tab2.col1 FROM tab2 WHERE tab1.col1 = tab2.col1)
ORDER BY tab1.col1

Yes, but it seems too confusing to mix them. We really need both those
features added to PostgreSQL.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026