From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com>
cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres behavior - Conditional statements
In-reply-to: <1393260479026-5793317.post@n5.nabble.com>
References: 
 <CAA5_7crQLLN=Wr7gp4ykhmTZxrbtSfXjucQeoi2uyec79N1Z7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1905.1393257750@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1393260479026-5793317.post@n5.nabble.com>
Comments: In-reply-to David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com>
 message dated "Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:47:59 -0800"
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:18:09 -0500
Message-ID: <3754.1393262289@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org

David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com> writes:
> Tom Lane-2 wrote
>> The behavior of CASE didn't change, but the behavior of the sub-select
>> did.

> CASE should be treated just like a function and the name of the function
> should be returned.  Arbitrarily picking the "else" branch to obtain the
> name of the result column seems somehow wrong.

[ shrug... ]  It's acted like that since roughly the late bronze age;
or to be more specific, since commit 2b189aa9537f7b4a of 1998-12-13.
Given the lack of previous complaints, it's going to take a lot more
than one man's opinion to change it.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql