Since FOR UPDATE is not allowed with UNION I suppose it is also not allowed
with INTERSECT and EXCEPT. Is that correct?

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes                         | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz    | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651                 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael.Meskes@gmx.net          | Use PostgreSQL!

Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:40:04 +0100
Michael Meskes <Michael.Meskes@usa.net>
latest parser changes
> Since FOR UPDATE is not allowed with UNION I suppose it is also not allowed
> with INTERSECT and EXCEPT. Is that correct?

Beats me.  I allowed it in the grammer while merging Stephan's stuff
into the code.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@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

Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:11:38 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] latest parser changes
Michael Meskes wrote:
> 
> Since FOR UPDATE is not allowed with UNION I suppose it is also not allowed
> with INTERSECT and EXCEPT. Is that correct?

Yes. 

Vadim

Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:56:36 +0700
Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>
Re: [HACKERS] latest parser changes
> Michael Meskes wrote:
> > 
> > Since FOR UPDATE is not allowed with UNION I suppose it is also not allowed
> > with INTERSECT and EXCEPT. Is that correct?

Looks like the tests you make in gram.y will still catch those.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@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

Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:00:14 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] latest parser changes
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 12:11:38PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Since FOR UPDATE is not allowed with UNION I suppose it is also not allowed
> > with INTERSECT and EXCEPT. Is that correct?
> 
> Beats me.  I allowed it in the grammer while merging Stephan's stuff
> into the code.

Since I cannot see the appropriate check for this, I guess we should add it
to gram.y.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes                         | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz    | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651                 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael.Meskes@gmx.net          | Use PostgreSQL!

Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:33:56 +0100
Michael Meskes <Michael.Meskes@usa.net>
Re: [HACKERS] latest parser changes
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 10:00:14PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Since FOR UPDATE is not allowed with UNION I suppose it is also not allowed
> > > with INTERSECT and EXCEPT. Is that correct?
> 
> Looks like the tests you make in gram.y will still catch those.

Where? I just see:

if (n->unionClause != NULL)
         elog(ERROR, "SELECT FORUPDATE is not allowed with UNION clause");
                                       
but not intersect and except. But then I haven't had to time to read the
code carefully.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes                         | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz    | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651                 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael.Meskes@gmx.net          | Use PostgreSQL!

Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:35:24 +0100
Michael Meskes <Michael.Meskes@usa.net>
Re: [HACKERS] latest parser changes
> On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 10:00:14PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Since FOR UPDATE is not allowed with UNION I suppose it is also not allowed
> > > > with INTERSECT and EXCEPT. Is that correct?
> > 
> > Looks like the tests you make in gram.y will still catch those.
> 
> Where? I just see:
> 
> if (n->unionClause != NULL)
>          elog(ERROR, "SELECT FORUPDATE is not allowed with UNION clause");
>                                        
> but not intersect and except. But then I haven't had to time to read the
> code carefully.

I thought INTERSECT and EXCEPT used UNION as well, or is that false?  I
don't know.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@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

Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:47:10 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] latest parser changes
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 03:47:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I thought INTERSECT and EXCEPT used UNION as well, or is that false?  I
> don't know.

I don't think you're right. I see three different rules for the three
keywords.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes                         | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz    | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651                 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael.Meskes@gmx.net          | Use PostgreSQL!

Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:01:02 +0100
Michael Meskes <Michael.Meskes@usa.net>
Re: [HACKERS] latest parser changes
> On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 03:47:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I thought INTERSECT and EXCEPT used UNION as well, or is that false?  I
> > don't know.
> 
> I don't think you're right. I see three different rules for the three
> keywords.

I see.  I have added the intersectClause test.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@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

Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:48:23 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] latest parser changes