On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 01:53:25PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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.
3d895bc84 also moved a semicolon into the middle of the sql statement. > > 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. Evidently I misunderstood it, too. -- Justin
