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

Re: max(*)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: max(*)
Date: 2006-05-26 19:37:51
Message-ID: 28527.1148672271@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> My concern is that it's not inconceiveable to typo max(field) into
> max(*), which could make for a rather frustrating error. Not to mention
> this being something that could trip newbies up. If nothing else I'd say
> it warrants a %TODO just so it doesn't end up on the PostgreSQL gotcha's
> page. :)

count(*) has been implemented that way since about 1999, and no one's
complained yet, so I think you are overstating the importance of the
problem.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: max(*) at 2006-05-26 19:06:29 from Jim C. Nasby

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andreas SeltenreichDate: 2006-05-26 19:45:02
Subject: Re: GIN stuck in loop during PITR
Previous:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2006-05-26 19:35:20
Subject: Re: max(*)

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