| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Recognize functional dependency on primary keys. |
| Date: | 2010-08-14 13:02:22 |
| Message-ID: | 201008141302.o7ED2M506714@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not sure whether there is any clear rule for what rows you get when
> >> grouping by a non-PK column in mysql, but it'll let you do it.
>
> > I understand this. The issue is how many people who complained about
> > our GROUP BY behavior were grouping by something that was a primary key,
> > and how many were not using a primary key? The former will no longer
> > complain.
>
> No doubt, but the TODO entry you removed is still 100% accurately
> worded, and what's more the archive entry it links to clearly describes
> exactly the point at issue, namely that grouping by a PK *isn't*
> indeterminate. You were wrong to remove it.
OK, I put it back, but I still feel we might not need it anymore.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-14 13:23:33 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Recognize functional dependency on primary keys. |
| Previous Message | User Doudou586 | 2010-08-14 09:39:11 | press - pr: Chinese Version Done. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-14 13:21:42 | Re: WIP partial replication patch |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-08-14 12:12:50 | Re: Proposal / proof of concept: Triggers on VIEWs |