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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-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

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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