From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | aceonline(at)gmx(dot)de, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #16510: Count Distinct with non distinct column in combination with string constants throws error |
Date: | 2020-06-25 14:42:18 |
Message-ID: | 97455ED3-B219-43BA-88EF-9CFDAF70E44E@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
> On 25 Jun 2020, at 16:32, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The reason for this might be a little more obvious if you wrote the
> implicit row constructor explicitly, ie
>
> SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ROW(testtable.column2, 'blub')) FROM public.testtable;
That's a good point, that's a clearer explanation.
> Perhaps there's room to argue that we should allow 'unknown' to decay to
> 'text' automatically in this context, but I'm not in a big hurry to do
> that. It seems better to make people be explicit about which datatype
> they intend inside such complex, infrequently-used constructs.
Agreed, it sounds like something that will just work in most cases but run the
risk of introducing subtle bugs in the cases where it doesn't.
cheers ./daniel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-06-25 14:52:42 | Re: BUG #16509: Unable to change from 32 bit to 64 bit |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-06-25 14:32:34 | Re: BUG #16510: Count Distinct with non distinct column in combination with string constants throws error |