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