On 2022-Aug-12, Simon Riggs wrote: > Sorry, but I disagree with this chunk in the latest commit, > specifically, changing the MATCHED from after to before the NOT > MATCHED clause. > > The whole point of the second example was to demonstrate that the > order of the MATCHED/NOT MATCHED clauses made no difference. > > By changing the examples so they are the same, the sentence at line > 573 now makes no sense.
Hmm, I thought the point of the example was to show that you can replace the table in the USING clause with a query that retrieves the column; but you're right, we lost the thing there. Maybe it was too subtle to the point that I failed to understand it. Perhaps we can put it back the way it was and explain these two differences (change of data source *and* clause ordering) more explicitly. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "La virtud es el justo medio entre dos defectos" (Aristóteles)
