Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Barry Lind" <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY
Date: 2005-03-10 23:09:30
Message-ID: 26596.1110496170@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
"Barry Lind" <blind(at)xythos(dot)com> writes:
> On Oracle 9.2 you get 0, 0, 0, and 2 rows.

Really!?  Well, we always knew they were a bit standards-challenged ;-).
I have more faith in DB2 being an accurate implementation of the spec.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Laszlo HornyakDate: 2005-03-10 23:35:07
Subject: Re: Runtime accepting build discrepancies
Previous:From: Nicolai TufarDate: 2005-03-10 22:43:48
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-03-10 23:49:47
Subject: Re: BUG #1528: Rows returned that should be excluded by WHERE clause
Previous:From: Mark ShewmakerDate: 2005-03-10 22:42:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group